ZACF Reply to the Misrepresentation of the ZACF by American Journalists and on the Schmidt Affair

The following is the official statement of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa on the controversy that erupted around Michael Schmidt, a South African activist, several months ago. It follows a careful collective discussion process and research and comes several weeks after the last installment in a series of articles claiming to be an expose of Schmidt. As we are also committed to a number of ongoing workshops, activities and publications, our time was limited. It has two main aims: to outline our position on the claims made for, and against, Schmidt, and to respond to a number of false statements that have been made about the ZACF in the course of the developing Schmidt affair.

The statement opens with an executive summary, followed by a much more extensive discussion.

Questions and requests for comment should be addressed to zacf@riseup.net with a clearly-identifiable subject line (Please note that we will not be responding to questions, queries or claims from people using pseudonyms or otherwise concealing their identities. Organisational affiliation, if any, should please be stated).

* Please note that a much earlier draft seems to have leaked online, labelled “Consolidated ZACF statement v18.docx” at 84kb, dated 22 December 2015. Our documents go through a process of collective writing and criticism and fact-checking, so THIS version (the one you are reading now) is the correct one, with significant changes from earlier versions. All previous drafts are made null-and-void by this final version and have no standing whatsoever, and we will not enter into discussion of such drafts.

ZACF Reply to the Misrepresentation of the ZACF by American Journalists and on the Schmidt Affair

19th February 2016

The following is the official statement of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa on the controversy that erupted around Michael Schmidt, a South African activist, several months ago. It follows a careful collective discussion process and research and comes several weeks after the last installment in a series of articles claiming to be an expose of Schmidt. As we are also committed to a number of ongoing workshops, activities and publications, our time was limited. It has two main aims: to outline our position on the claims made for, and against, Schmidt, and to respond to a number of false statements that have been made about the ZACF in the course of the developing Schmidt affair.

The statement opens with an executive summary, followed by a much more extensive discussion.

Questions and requests for comment should be addressed to zacf@riseup.net with a clearly-identifiable subject line (Please note that we will not be responding to questions, queries or claims from people using pseudonyms or otherwise concealing their identities. Organisational affiliation, if any, should please be stated).

* Please note that a much earlier draft seems to have leaked online, labelled “Consolidated ZACF statement v18.docx” at 84kb, dated 22 December 2015. Our documents go through a process of collective writing and criticism and fact-checking, so THIS version (the one you are reading now) is the correct one, with significant changes from earlier versions. All previous drafts are made null-and-void by this final version and have no standing whatsoever, and we will not enter into discussion of such drafts.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (DETAILED ANALYSIS FOLLOWS):

1. The Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF, or “Zabalaza”) is a small anarchist / syndicalist organisation in South Africa, dating back to 2003. It has a long history of militant work and publication, a majority black and working class composition, and connections in neighbouring countries. It was formed on May Day 2003 by independent collectives involved in student and township struggles and in the “new social movements” of the time. In line with its founding documents, the ZACF Constitution and Position Papers, the ZACF opposes all forms of oppression, including racial domination, national oppression, imperialism, the oppression of women and immigrants, and capitalism and the state (http://zabalaza.net/organise/theoretical-positions-of-the-zacf/).

2. We stand for the complete national and class emancipation of the black working class in South Africa through revolutionary struggle, and have a long track record as an organisation that’s political work and social base lie primarily with the black working class and its organisations (see e.g. www.zabalaza.net and www.saasha.net and www.facebook/zabalazanews). The anarchist and syndicalist movement in South Africa is very small, and the ZACF is a substantial and important part of this movement, not a minority strand.

3. In this statement the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) discusses the controversy that has surrounded accusations against former ZACF member Michael Schmidt, by the American journalists Alexander Reid Ross and Joshua Stephens and the America-based publisher AK Press. Schmidt left active work in ZACF in early 2009, and resigned in early 2010. The allegations are that Schmidt was, from at least 2002 to the present, a fascist and racist cadre infiltrating the anarchists – including ZACF. Schmidt argues that he has been misrepresented, that his track record and the evidence are at odds with the claims, and that fake right-wing statements he made as an undercover journalist investigating the white radical right have been misrepresented as his real views. Schmidt’s accusers claim these statements reflect his real views, and are part of a larger pattern of ongoing right-wing thought and action.

4. This is the second ZACF statement on the Schmidt affair, in the sense that ZACF was party to a statement issued by the global Anarkismo network on 29 September 2015, which currently comprises over a dozen revolutionary anarchist groups on five continents, most, historically, from the Global South. This statement did not take sides, but called instead for a careful evaluation of the case, the release of all evidence, and on AK Press to state that the accusations applied to Schmidt alone (not to everyone with whom he had been associated ( www.anarkismo.net/article/28576). This statement was not acknowledged by Reid Ross and Stephens, or AK Press. The gravity of the allegations does not justify a lack of fair process.

5. ZACF completely distances itself from any and all racist and fascist and white supremacist positions, and condemns them in the strongest possible terms.

6. ZACF completely distances itself from any offensive statements that Schmidt has made, regardless of the rationale for such statements. We are disgusted by what we have read, and by the number of these statements, and note that these statements are indeed deeply racist and sometimes fascist. The “manifesto” and blog posts attributed to Schmidt on the right wing website Stormfront and on his blog at strandwolf.blogspot.com (linked to a group he now admits to setting up named Black Battlefront) are horrifying. It is very difficult for us to reconcile these awful blog posts (and those of several related online personas) with our experiences of Michael Schmidt as an active and dedicated member of our organisation.

7. ZACF views the accusations against Schmidt with the utmost gravity. If the accusations are proven true, ZACF will denounce Schmidt and take all appropriate steps. If proven, the accusations would indicate activities and views completely at odds with the positions and practice and social composition of the ZACF, at odds with the class-struggle, anti-racist and anti-oppression anarchist and syndicalist traditions that ZACF champions, as well as manifest dishonesty on Schmidt’s part. And the ZACF would have been the primary victim of Schmidt’s activities. Schmidt, if guilty, must bear the consequences of his actions.

8. ZACF also wishes to put on record that Schmidt has not been a member or participant in ZACF for over five years, has played no role in the development of this statement, or in any proposals and points that this statement makes, and has not been shown drafts or asked for comment, and also that ZACF has not been lobbied by Schmidt – or anyone else – to make any particular statements on the Schmidt affair, 2015-2016.

9. It is our position that the Schmidt affair cannot be resolved through another round of online articles, social media debates or statements. Not only have the online debates become unproductive and polarised (see point 27) but so much information and analysis has been produced that it is very difficult for individuals and organisations to methodically process and evaluate all arguments made by both sides.

10. In terms of evaluating the charges against Schmidt, ZACF instead supports the 30 January 2016 Anarkismo proposal for an inclusive and international anarchist and syndicalist commission of inquiry, to examine the allegations against Schmidt, as well as Schmidt’s replies to the allegations, with accusers and accused and sources available to answer questions and provide materials to the commission. The proposal does not envisage an Anarkismo-controlled process. Nor would Reid Ross and Stephens, AK Press or Schmidt, decide on its composition. See http://anarkismo.net/article/29047

11. We believe there are real problems with some of the statements made by both the accusers of Schmidt against Schmidt himself, as well as in Schmidt’s responses to these accusations. These may be open to innocent explanations: we keep an open mind. The ZACF will make a formal submission to the proposed commission, and be available for questions and to provide additional materials to that commission. We have extensive archives and records, which back up our claims, for example, about ZACF history (see below).

12. ZACF will also consider itself guided by the findings and recommendations of the proposed commission. The ZACF will address all the allegations against Schmidt himself, as well as his defence, in a separate statement at the conclusion of the commission's investigations.

13. ZACF wishes to place on record that when similar accusations were levelled against Schmidt from 2011 onwards, we confronted and checked on Schmidt several times. He has always maintained the same basic defence as that he has presented in 2015. Given the evidence we had to hand, and given Schmidt’s record and status as a long-standing comrade, we felt that we had no real choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt. Historically we have critically accepted Schmidt’s explanation for what we felt was the lack of an alternative, but we recognise that an extensive case has now been made against Schmidt, and new evidence brought to bear. This new material and debate merits careful reflection and evaluation, but must be weighed up carefully against his own counter-case – honestly and fairly.

14. ZACF expresses its disappointment with Schmidt’s now-admitted non-disclosure of aspects of his claimed underground journalistic work to the ZACF, both during his tenure in the ZACF and when it previously spoke to him from 2011 onwards. ZACF is highly disappointed by Schmidt’s now-admitted failure to inform ZACF that he knew the identity of a National Intelligence Agency (NIA) spy moving in left circles.

15. We do not, in this statement, therefore discuss whether Schmidt is indeed guilty of all the charges that have been made against him by AK Press, and Reid Ross and Stephens. This statement is not a point-by-point discussion of evidence around Schmidt, and should not be misconstrued as such. It is detailed, not to bury issues in words, but because serious allegations need a serious reply.

16. ZACF rejects the version of ZACF history and politics contained within Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles. We realise well enough that ZACF was not the focus of the articles, and take it in good faith that we entered the conversation only by way of association, but we have to respond to what constitutes (even if unintentionally) a series of very serious, very damaging (and, as we show, false) allegations about our organisation. They were not irrelevant to it, or trivialities that can be ignored on the grounds that the focus was on Schmidt.

17. ZACF specifically rejects the following central claims put foward by Reid Ross and Stephens: that the ZACF considered a proposal for racial segregation in 2003 (untrue), that Schmidt successfully engineered the expulsion of black and township ZACF members in 2005 to whittle ZACF into a white group (untrue), that ZACF's organisational culture was deeply shaped by an allegedly racist and fascist Schmidt (untrue), that ZACF ignored evidence that Schmidt was involved with the radical right (untrue), that other ZACF members shared Schmidt’s alleged right-wing opinions (untrue), that ZACF opposed feminism (untrue), that a ZACF social centre and garden in Soweto was run on racist lines (untrue), and they speak of a “Schmidt-era” of ZACF lasting into 2009 (untrue). ZACF also rejects Reid Ross and Stephens’ claims about the “national” character of ZACF, claims about the 2007 ZACF congress, claims about ZACF financial practices, claims about ZACF organisational culture and standards, and claims that ZACF ignored a problematic document that Schmidt issued internally in 2008 called “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement” (ZACF discussed and rejected the document, and Schmidt also formally repudiated it that year).

18. There is no evidence whatsoever that ZACF was subverted, before, during or after 2008 by any fascist or racist or radical white right agenda, by anyone whatsoever. We are not concerned here with the separate issue of what Schmidt might have done elsewhere, covertly or otherwise in this period, we are stating that ZACF was never influenced by these politics – and that Schmidt never openly pursued any such politics while in ZACF. Contrary to the impression given by Reid Ross and Stephens, ZACF has always strived to act decisively and in line with its revolutionary principles and approach. There was no transition from a so-called right-wing “Schmidt-era” of ZACF, to a new, transformed ZACF later: ZACF theory and perspectives never changed, and the black working class orientation of ZACF never changed.

19. This criticism of the articles is not a matter of “shooting-the-messenger,” but of demonstrating that the message (as regards ZACF) is wrong. It is essential to our honour as revolutionaries to challenge, on the basis of facts, the profoundly inaccurate Reid Ross and Stephens’ version of ZACF history and politics, to clarifying the record of the ZACF, this including Schmidt’s role in ZACF, and ZACF’s relations to Schmidt, when he was a member, and subsequently.

20. Reid Ross and Stephens’ inaccurate representation of ZACF is based on poor research and analysis, and serious factual and analytical problems, regarding not just ZACF but South Africa generally. Eurocentrism and an uncritical embrace by the two journalists of deeply problematic anti-left arguments associated with the South African state and ultra-nationalists, but rooted in the colonial geography of reason, are part of the problem.

21. No use was made of easily available ZACF source materials and archives, and the two journalists have failed to contact ZACF throughout the series to check facts or to provide right-of-reply to charges made. Their account of ZACF is almost entirely based on the views of one former member active for a relatively short period, outsider opinions, dubious inferences from an inaccurate document by Schmidt that was rejected by ZACF, and unsubstantiated and often demonstrably false assertions. The history of ZACF cannot be based on so few sources, especially given that claims made by these sources contradict a larger body of other evidence that has been ignored.

22. Silencing black and African voices, and the ZACF, has been central to the articles’ methodology. ZACF sources were ignored. Contradictory data and testimony was ignored. In particular this relates to one ZACF ex-member and founder member, comrade Mzamani Philip Nyalungu, who was made central to one article (in fact he is the only person we feel was insulted by name, besides Schmidt, in their seven articles.) His testimony, at odds with key claims by the journalists, was not cited, yet the testimony of two white ex-ZACF members was repeatedly presented as self-evidently true. This can be construed as racist: while Reid Ross and Stephens may argue that they have grounds to criticise Schmidt harshly, there is no justification for this treatment of a serious black working class militant.

23. Claims that we are unduly emotional about what we feel is an unjustifiable misrepresentation of the ZACF, that trivialise this misrepresentation, or that present ZACF as ill-informed or ill-motivated, reflect the same colonial and silencing outlook.

24. There was a double-standard throughout the discussion of ZACF, which placed ZACF in a subordinate position, and had racial overtones. Reid Ross and Stephens stated that they concealed the names of the sources cited to ensure their personal security. Yet they provided the name and residential information of a prominent, township-based, black working class ex-ZACF member, while diligently concealing the details of a white middle class ex-ZACF member, no longer even resident in South Africa. No account was taken of the often violently intolerant contexts in which ZACF operates, and how the claims made in the articles against ZACF place it and its members at risk. If Schmidt was a fascist, racist infiltrator who was allegedly sufficiently dangerous to require that sources be kept concealed for safety, as the journalists insisted, then their immediate responsibility was actually to inform ZACF of a potentially deadly security threat. This would have allowed us to take immediate steps for the security of our black working class base. This never happened.

25. The same double standard was evident in the contrasting treatment of AK Press and ZACF. ZACF believes it completely unacceptable that Reid Ross and Stephens informed AK Press of their investigations into Schmidt and pending articles, allowing it to avoid reputational damage with a pre-emptive public statement – yet did not contact ZACF in a similar manner.

26. The development of the Schmidt affair raises questions about the future of the anarchist movement in the Global South and elsewhere. Certainly if Schmidt is guilty there are grounds for serious concern, but we have in mind here other issues that are just as important. The absence of a proper right-of-reply prior to publication, for both ZACF and Schmidt, the neglect for the safety and wellbeing of a black ZACF founder member, the hostile and personalised tone of many claims in the articles, the trial-by-media that has taken place, and the serious inaccuracies in the story around the ZACF, are some of the problems.

27. The ZACF also expresses its serious concern about the venomous and polarised tone that online debates on the Schmidt affair have assumed. A vocal anti-Schmidt current dominates many forums by relying, not on substantive debate, but on innuendos and on labelling, with any disagreement with any part of Reid Ross and Stephens’ / AK Press’ claims treated as the work of fascists, racists, tools of Schmidt etc. In this climate, those with contrary views soon withdraw, rational debate is closed, and more nuanced views that do not fit a neat pro-/ anti-Schmidt position, are lost. This is not a constructive approach to any debate, regardless of the severity of the accusations.

28. A sectarian current has also used the Schmidt affair to attack the ZACF, Anarkismo, and the whole anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary syndicalist and anarchist-communist mainstream of anarchism. The simple fact of the matter is that, if Schmidt is indeed guilty, he would have betrayed the basic principles of class-struggle anarchism, the ZACF he helped found, the anarchists he has worked with as a militant and as a writer, and the movement generally. Therefore it is false to assume that if Schmidt is guilty, that his views represent, or arise from, class-struggle or Platformist/especifista anarchist traditions.

29. We are appalled that the worst public caricature that has ever been made of the ZACF comes, not from the state, not from capital, not from other left groups, but from people who claim to be anarchists. This is not a sign of a healthy movement.

30. ZACF believes there are also serious North/ South power dynamics at play in the affair that need attention. Precisely because countries like the USA dominate media, knowledge production and publication globally, even obscure writers in the Global North have a louder voice than almost any in the Global South. This is the context that allows the tiny collective running the America-based publishing house AK Press, and two minor (although doubtless well-intentioned and sincere – we are not debating their personalities) American journalists, Reid Ross and Stephens, to propagate their views on a global scale. ZACF simply has no commensurate power, this being directly linked to its African basis.

31. This North/ South situation allows the views of ZACF and Anarkismo, representing far more people and countries than one American publishing cooperative and two American journalists, to be completely marginalised, power reinforcing the process of silencing the African and black and ZACF voices that we have mentioned. It allows AK Press to effectively ban from publication “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism,” which was primarily authored by one-time ZACF member, comrade Lucien van der Walt, almost a decade ago, as part of a larger project with Schmidt. It allows Anarkismo’s efforts to democratise the AK Press space by taking responsibility, qualifying its claims, and carrying different views on the story, to be ignored. It allows Reid Ross and Stephens to say what they wish about ZACF from behind the secure walls of the dollar and the American legal system. And it allows the unedifying spectacle of two white Americans doling out advice on racial politics and “the deleterious effects of institutionalized power disparities” to African and black anarchist revolutionaries.

32. We reject the AK Press collective’s attempts to deny responsibility in this affair. By their own admission, they worked with Reid Ross and Stephens to investigate Schmidt, and collaborated with them in compiling evidence; and they have provided the main platform for the mass dissemination of Reid Ross and Stephens’ seven articles. They are as responsible as Reid Ross and Stephens for what the ZACF has endured.

33. All of this is far from the prefigurative, solidaristic and internationalist movement we would like to see change the world. To avoid similar situations in future, we advocate a code of conduct for anarchist or anarchist-identified writers and journalists, that measures be put in place to keep small collectives controlling massive resources – including publishers like AK Press – accountable to the movements they claim to serve, the development of a more inclusive anarchist press, in which voices from working class and peasant movements, from ghettoes, from townships, from labour movements, from the oppressed nationalities and classes, and from the Global South as well as the Global North, are central.

34. ZACF also believes that substantial sectors of the self-identified anarchist movement need to have some serious introspection about the political culture of venom, sectarianism, and McCarthyite-style paranoia, obsessed with ultra-fringe forces like “national-anarchism,” exposed in the Schmidt affair. This that often substitutes for, and certainly hinders, building a mass, sustained, organised anarchism and syndicalism rooted in the popular classes, in labour movements, in oppressed nationalities, and in actual revolutionary struggles. Approaches like those proposed by Anarkismo and ZACF – a cautious approach to serious allegations, the use of a commission – can play an important role in this process.

35. We do not object to debate, or to criticism or self-reflection. Nor do we object to the anarchist and syndicalist movement having open and frank discussions. We do not call for a unity based on ignoring differences or on silence. We welcome open and honest debate as an essential part of an effective political practice. But what we do object to are debates based on sectarianism, personal attacks, innuendos, labelling, and bullying, and a lack of sensitivity to power dynamics.

36. We wish to stress that we have no personal issues with either Reid Ross or Stephens, neither of whom we know. We have no objections to critique. And we note Reid Ross emailed us on 27 December 2015 to state, “You have only my deepest respect for carrying on your incredible work” and stated he was “deeply sorry” if the articles created problems for ZACF. He also stated, “It was always my intention to remove both your collective and Lucien [van der Walt] from the investigation in such a way that would prevent a kind of ‘witch hunt’ effect.” We appreciate this effort to reach out to us, and the sentiment contained in these statements.

37. But the fact remains that the articles have, whether intentional or not, promoted falsehoods about ZACF, created serious problems for ZACF, silenced and even lectured ZACF. Neither AK Press, nor Stephens, nor Reid Ross have admitted this publicly; AK Press cancelled “Black Flame,” of which comrade van der Walt was primary author, Reid Ross and Stephens slated that book in their articles and by implication comrade van der Walt, and the articles presented ZACF as fundamentally subverted by a fascist and racist agenda. This obviously creates problems for ZACF.

38. Although “Black Flame” has, like any book, various flaws, and is not a ZACF publication, we insist that it is a revolutionary anarchist classic that remains of enduring value. It is a non-Eurocentric South-centred text that, for the first time, places people of colour, the Global South and struggles against imperialism and racism at the very centre of the history, canon and movements of historic anarchism and syndicalism. Reid Ross and Stephens themselves concede the book asserts the “primacy of class struggle and workers’ movements” in a global anarchist struggle – and this is not a rightist or a nationalist position.

39. We therefore urge both Reid Ross and Stephens, as well as members of the AK Press collective, not to fire off a hasty response to what we have written, but to consider seriously and respectfully the problems they have created for ZACF, one of the main anarchist organisations in Africa. And to admit there is fault, and that there are errors in the articles and the process that created them. We have no personal issues with any of these parties: we are raising issues of principle and process that deserve due consideration and a respectful conversation. We urge them to avoid statements that trivialize what has been done to ZACF, and how it has been done, or that evade responsibility by suggesting our responses are unduly emotional or ignorant.

40. If they are deeply sorry for the problems they created, as Reid Ross stated in his e-mail to the ZACF, they should issue a public apology to ZACF and to comrades Nyalungu and van der Walt (approved by ZACF in advance), for the misrepresentations that have been made, and also make a clear public statement (approved by ZACF in advance) explicitly stating that the allegations that they have made against Schmidt refer to Schmidt alone, and not to any publishers, co-authors, editors, left organisations or currents with which he may have been associated. (To his credit, Reid Ross has suggested that he is amiable to the idea of such a statement although we note that it has not, so far, appeared. We note with appreciation a statement by Reid Ross published on 17 February ( http://alexanderreidross.com/ideological-influence-and-the-schmidt-affair/ [10]) in which he states that “some have implicated the wrong people, groups, or sets of ideas”, but do not feel this goes far enough in addressing our concerns and ameliorating the damage done to the political work, dignity and reputation of the ZACF, comrades Nyalungu and van der Walt or "Black Flame".)

*2A. Overview of the 2015 Controversy over Michael Schmidt
*2B. How Anarkismo and ZACF Intervened at the Start of the Michael Schmidt Controversy
*2C. A Proposed Anarchist/ Syndicalist Commission into the Charges against Schmidt in 2016
*2D. FACT: ZACF Questioned Schmidt When Similar Allegations were made from 2011 Onwards
*2E. FACT: ZACF has Not Yet Taken a Position For or Against Schmidt in 2015/ 2016

*3A. A Summary of Reid Ross & Stephens’ Inaccurate Claims about ZACF
*3B. FACT: The ZACF Never Considered any Proposal for “Segregation,” Argued Instead for a Black Working Class Focus, in 2003
*3C. FACT: The ZACF Never “Purged” Township Groups or Members
*3D. FACT: ZACF Mass Work in Motsoaledi, Soweto as Against Reid Ross & Stephens' Disrespect for Comrade Nyalungu and PMCP/ BAG
*3E. FACT: ZACF Spending and ZACF Democracy
*3F. FACT: The 2007 ZACF Congress Aimed to Rebuild the ZACF Presence in the Black Working Class
*3G. FACT: The ZACF (and Schmidt) Rejected Schmidt's “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” Document in 2008
*3H. FACT: The Revolutionary Politics of “Black Flame”
*3I. FACT: Dispelling the Myth of a ZACF Debate on the “Recruitment of People of Colour” and of ZACF Becoming “Increasingly Open”
*3J. FACT: Claims that Schmidt Allegedly Voted FF+ were Never Ignored
*3K. FACT: Dispelling the Myth of a ZACF Debate on the “Inclusion of Feminism,” 2009-2010
*3L. FACT: Dispelling the Myth of a Debate on Working with “Collectives with Ideological Differences,” 2009-2010

**SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY: SOME REASONS FOR THE PROBLEMS IN REID ROSS & STEPHENS' ZACF RESEARCH

*4A. Extraordinarily Narrow Data Collection, which Silenced ZACF, African and Black Anarchists
*4B. A Selective Use of Evidence and Leading the Witness
*4C. The Need to Distinguish Direct Witness Testimony, Second-hand Information and Opinion
*4D. Research Problems with Excessively Using Anonymous Sources
*4E. Fact-Checking Controlled by the Authors
*4F. Was Such Extensive Anonymity Really Required?
*4G. Time Constraints Do Not Explain the Mistakes
*4H. The Lack of a Proper Editorial or Peer-Review Process

*5A. Authoritarian Nationalism and Colonial Reason: The Roots of Anti-Left Arguments
*5B. The Unknown Country: Reading South Africa off the USA and Western Europe

**SECTION 6: POLITICAL ISSUES IN THE AFFAIR - AND HOW A BETTER ANARCHISM IS POSSIBLE

*6A. For a Constructive Debate, Against Sectarianism
*6B. The Importance of Consistent Principles: The Double Standards of Personal Security in the Schmidt Affair
*6C. The AK Press Connection: Also Guilty
*6D. The North/ South Dynamics of the Schmidt Affair

*1A. ZACF: Politics, Record and the Black Working Class Revolution

The Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF, or “Zabalaza”) is a small anarchist / syndicalist organisation in South Africa, dating back to 2003. It has a long history of militant work and publication, a majority black and working class composition, and connections in neighbouring countries. It was formed on May Day 2003 by independent collectives involved in student, anti-privatisation and township struggles. In line with its founding documents, the ZACF Constitution and Position Papers, the ZACF opposes all forms of oppression, including racial domination, national oppression, imperialism, the oppression of women and immigrants, and capitalism and the state ( http://zabalaza.net/organise/constitution-of-the-zacf/ and http://zabalaza.net/organise/theoretical-positions-of-the-zacf/).

ZACF analyses South African capitalism as based on the exploitation of cheap black labour, a system that was entrenched by the apartheid National Party (NP) from 1948, but deeply rooted in prior processes of British imperial conquest and monopoly capitalism.

While describing the democratic breakthrough of 1994 as a “massive victory” against white supremacy, the ZACF insists that only a massive redistribution of land, power and wealth can end the apartheid legacy and ongoing cheap labour system. This requires ongoing struggle, with the black working class (including the poor and unemployed) identified as “the agent of revolutionary change” and true “national liberation”– and the defeat of black and white elites, and of the state ( http://zabalaza.net/2010/11/28/fighting-and-defeating-racism-zacf/). This would include a campaign of land, mine, office and factory occupations, collectivisation and self-management.

(Note that “black” in South African political, legal and ZACF discourse includes all people of colour historically oppressed by apartheid and colonialism in South Africa: Asians, “Coloureds” and black Africans).

The ZACF has no interest in organising South Africa’s historically white suburbs, its aim being the building of a black anarchist cadre based in the workplace and in the townships. We do not fight to change the colour of exploiters, but to end all exploitation and domination. The genuine liberation of the mass of people is impossible within the framework of capitalism and the state, with their inherent inequalities, crisis, war, distorted development and central role in generating national, racial, imperial and other forms of oppression. This certainly does not mean that such oppression can be reduced to the effects of capitalism and the state, but it does mean that such oppression can only be fully overcome through their abolition.

We do not aim at a “patriotic capitalism,” or a new capitalist growth path, but at breaking the mechanisms of discrimination, humiliation and oppression that keep working and poor people on bended knees before bosses and politicians through struggle. All reforms won from below, that improve conditions and empower “ordinary” people, are valuable.

But revolution requires using immediate struggles to build the organised capacity and popular radicalism, and united and internationalist working class (broadly understood, not just manual workers or the employed) and poor and peasantry essential to revolution. This is partly why ZACF opposes the formation of “separate” organisations and structures based on gender, race, nationality and other lines (http://zabalaza.net/2010/10/28/separate-organisations-zacf/) – although we defend people’s right to do so. We call on our white class brothers and sisters to participate in the revolution, but on the basis of the anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist line that alone allows principled working class unity.

The ZACF is not an end in itself, or a brand, but simply a means for serious comrades to work together in a focused way, with a clear strategy and programme. Of course it has made mistakes, and of course it has had its successes and setbacks. A truly revolutionary movement does not work by being all-knowing, but by testing its ideas and methods in struggle – and by learning from its mistakes and correcting its work.

That being said, ZACF has achieved many good things, operating in a collective way, in promoting anarchism and syndicalism and the revolutionary struggle in South Africa. The ZACF has a history of continuous publication, propaganda, education work, and involvement with unions and social movements in the industrial province of Gauteng (and previously, also in greater Durban and Swaziland), and a black working class focus, that stands out. This is not to denigrate other efforts, since we welcome all anarchist and left initiatives, but simply to place the ZACF in context and set the record straight.

ZACF has published hundreds of pamphlets through the Zabalaza Books project, papers like “Zabalaza” journal, “Zabalaza News,” “Black Alert,” and “Vuka Motsoaledi.” Its members have been active in unions, neighbourhood and student activism, and in popular and worker education, and have played a role not just in South Africa, but in Swaziland and Zimbabwe as well. ZACF was linked through its Bikisha Media Collective (BMC) to the Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF), a black working class coalition formed in 2000, and affiliated and played a role in the Coalition Against Xenophobia (CAX) formed in 2008, and then the Democratic Left Front, formed in 2011; it helped found the Motsoaledi Concerned Residents (MCR) in 2005, an APF-affiliated community movement in a Soweto squatter camp; ZACF members have helped run at least two working class libraries and centres; and it has undertaken serious solidarity work with communities, unions and individuals under attack or in jail, and campaigns for its own arrested or repressed members. ZACF members and supporters have also played an important part in the recovery of working class and popular history, and in union and social movement education in South Africa.

(Please note here that “supporter” in ZACF terms refers to a formally affiliated “supporter,” a category that exists in the ZACF constitution to cover candidate members, members on leave and sympathisers who are unable to fully participate in ZACF work).

Colonialism, segregation and white minority rule in southern Africa have been met by a range of responses by oppressed peoples and classes.

ZACF locates itself in the mainstream radical and revolutionary traditions of radical “humanism” and revolutionary non-racialism, as championed by the majority of progressive black-led anti-colonial and anti-apartheid nationalists across our region, as well as the left.

This insists that the fight against national/ racial oppression and narrow-minded bigotry must be met with “broad humanism,” that seeks to overcome, through genuine material and political equality, the barriers of race, ethnic group and religion (Walter Sisulu, July-September 1959, “Congress and the Africanists,” in “Africa South”).

The main dividing line is between those who fight for social justice and radical change, and those who fight to preserve an inegalitarian and brutal society that oppresses the majority. This is located in the understanding that there “are no racist peoples, no colonialist peoples,” but a common struggle “against the colonialists and imperialists who have no country, a struggle against the exploiters who have no race” (Samora Machel, 1973, “Women’s Liberation is Essential for Revolution,” in Ben Turok, ed., “Revolutionary Thought in the Twentieth Century,” IFAA, Johannesburg, p. 166).

So, anyone who genuinely fights the system of exploitation and colonialism is an ally, regardless of personal background. Rather than reproduce divisions, created by the system, through separate organisations, or adopt a reverse-chauvinism, or a system the aim is to build a powerful bloc, or progressive camp, of opposition that fights for, and also prefigures, a new, just, united society.

The ZACF’s revolutionary anarchism and syndicalism is part of this revolutionary “humanism” and radical non-racialism, a project that the southern African left has, at its best, always championed and pioneered. People are united on political, rather than, racial grounds, but the politics is radical.

Given how some conservative groups have attempted to appropriate “non-racialism,” we must stress that we are not talking here about a so-called colour-blindness that ignores racial/ national oppression, or a multi-racialism that gives minorities a veto entrenching inequality.

Instead: the approach we are talking about means that social evils like national / racial oppression can only be ended by radical, egalitarian change in the social system, and anyone willing to fight these evils, and to fight for these changes, should be welcomed to the struggle, regardless of colour. At the same time, this humanism and revolutionary non-racialism is only possible on the basis of a clear programme of abolishing and uprooting decades, centuries of vicious national/ racial oppression, not just its material legacies, but all the complexes of superiority and inferiority created by centuries of colonialism and racism ( http://zabalaza.net/2010/11/28/fighting-and-defeating-racism-zacf/).

And, of course, our vision of what this radical, egalitarian change must involve, as shown in the last section, is far more radical and thorough-going than that of even the best nationalists. Further, we do not see the basic feature of the opposition bloc, or progressive camp, we fight for, in terms of a multi-class “national-democratic” alliance, but in terms of a revolutionary front of the popular classes, against all forms of oppression.

So, while we are part of a larger tradition here, we are a very distinctive part. Indeed, we recognise that it was the revolutionary anarchists and syndicalists of the 1900s -1920s who pioneered the revolutionary humanism and radical non-racialism line in our country – giants like Bernard Sigamoney, Andrew Dunbar, and T.W. Thibedi – and who insisted in papers like the “International” and revolutionary syndicalist unions like the Industrial Workers of Africa, that the removal of all “tyrant” racist laws and oppression was the “essential step towards the Emancipation of the Working-class in South Africa” (“The International,” 7 December 1917, “No Labour Movement without the Black Proletariat”).

*1C. Resources on the ZACF

More than one thousand documents, articles, photos and statements by, or about, or published by, ZACF, and documenting some of its activities, can be found online at www.zabalaza.net, at www.zabalazabooks.net, at the Southern African Anarchist and Syndicalist History Archive (SAASHA) at www.saasha.net and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/zabalazanews/ (there are also numerous interviews with and articles on the ZACF, online elsewhere). ZACF is in contact with thousands of people through its sites, email, phone, workshops, public events, email lists and publications.

*2A. Overview of the 2015 Controversy over Michael Schmidt

From September-December 2015, the America-based AK Press and the American journalists Alexander Reid Ross and Joshua Stephens publicly denounced Schmidt. The accusations they have made are very serious: that Schmidt was secretly affiliated with the radical fascist right, a white supremacist and an infiltrator in the anarchist movement, from around 2002. Schmidt is shown to have maintained an active profile in the far-right through pseudonymous online profiles at several sites, set out to organise far-right groups, and infiltrated and subverted anarchists – notably the ZACF – including through published articles.

The AK Press statement did not provide evidence, but promised that evidence would be provided by two journalists and stated that AK Press had “helped” these journalists “investigate further” the matter and “received and compiled” evidence [1]. This was then followed by five articles (called “chapters”) by Reid Ross and Stephens, and three further pieces by Reid Ross alone, running from October into February 2016.

Schmidt has replied at length in two statements, one to the initial AK Press announcement, and one to the five Reid Ross and Stephens articles. The substance of his defence is that the allegations were at odds with his long record including writings, as a left-wing union, community and civil rights activist and his social and personal life, and anarchist-communist commitments. He admitted having fake online personas at far-right sites, and posting offensive statements through these. But he claimed he did so as an anarchist infiltrating the right undercover rather than the other way around, to monitor this sector and do research for media and books ( https://www.facebook.com/AKPress/posts/10156169461510249, and http://drinkingwithghosts.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/michael-schmidt-african-anarchist.html -- hereafter called [2] and listed at the end).

Schmidt argues that the distinction between his online hidden activities and his actual views and practices has been removed by his critics through misquotations and quotes out of context, guilt-by-association and amalgamation techniques, and falsehoods.

*2B. How Anarkismo and ZACF Intervened at the Start of the Michael Schmidt Controversy

The Anarkismo network responded to the AK Press statement within a week, with a widely-circulated statement issued on 29 September 2015 ( www.anarkismo.net/article/28576).

ZACF, as part of the Anarkismo network, endorses the official positions and statements of that network. It was party to the widely-circulated Anarkismo statement on the Schmidt affair, and in this sense, stated its opening position three months ago. Anarkismo represents quite a substantial body of anarchist opinion, with currently over a dozen affiliated groups in Africa, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America, plus close contacts in Asia, and with most affiliates, historically, from the Global South.

The Anarkismo statement expressed, first, serious concerns with the way that AK Press had acted:

“…. the way in which AK Press has dealt with the matter is irresponsible and prejudicial, judging and condemning Michael Schmidt without presenting any evidence, and without allowing him the right to defend himself, or to respond to the article before making the public announcement of 25 September 2015.”

That said, Anarkismo did not take a position for or against Schmidt. Rather, it appealed for rational debate and caution in what was obviously going to be a major controversy:

“Before we can make any pronouncements on the matter, however, we need to carefully examine both the AK Press evidence, the article by Alexander Reid Ross, as well as Michael Schmidt’s response to the evidence and article. As a network Anarkismo has not taken sides, and will not accuse the accuser or the accused before there is more information and all the evidence has been presented.”

Recognising the seriousness of the claims, Anarkismo insisted on a fair process, rather than a presumption of guilt at the outset. And note that, in requesting “evidence” Anarkismo was not necessarily requesting articles – but a release of the already-existing primary materials, such as those shown to and in the possession of AK Press [1], would have sufficed.

To try and offset the possibility that the charges against Schmidt be used to smear others, Anarkismo also insisted that AK Press:

“… unconditionally and explicitly state, also with immediate effect, that its allegations refer to Michael Schmidt alone, and not to any publishers, co-authors, editors, left organisations or currents with which Michael Schmidt may have been associated.”

Had AK Press (or the journalists Reid Ross and Stephens) taken this simple and responsible step, the online debates surrounding the Schmidt affair would likely not have taken the often vicious and unproductive form that they have subsequently assumed, and ZACF, for example, would not have been dragged so deeply into the affair.

Further, also in order to try and facilitate an open, evidence-based discussion and debate, Anarkismo added:

“We urge AK Press to publish Michael Schmidt’s official responses on its newswires and sites, as we believe that he has the right to defend himself.”

This is not, obviously, an endorsement of either side, but simply a question of principle: the right to answer accusations directly.

It must be noted here that Anarkismo’s appeals were ignored by AK Press. Every article by Reid Ross and Stephens was published on AK Press’s Facebook page, going straight into the newsfeed of everyone following that page, while the Anarkismo statement (and Schmidt’s statements) only appeared on that page when people posted them as comments or notes – and went largely unseen.

The articles by Reid Ross and Stephens, developing the charges against Schmidt, finally appeared from October 2015 into February 2016. Their eight papers also ignored the Anarkismo statement.

*2C. A Proposed Anarchist/ Syndicalist Commission into the Charges against Schmidt in 2016

As part of the Anarkismo network, ZACF adheres to the Anarkismo position that “Before we can make any pronouncements on the matter,” we need to examine all evidence and articles, and that Anarkismo will not take sides, or “accuse the accuser or the accused” before this is done ( http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28576).

And, as ZACF, we have concluded that the matter cannot be resolved through another round of online articles or by social media debates. So much information and analysis has been produced that it is very difficult for individuals, organisations and networks to methodically process and properly evaluate all arguments made by both sides. Online debates have been marked by venom and sectarianism, with people vaguely critical of AK Press’ / Reid Ross and Stephens’ claims or methodology regularly accused of being fascists or racists, or apologists for such politics etc., and sectarians have used the accusations against Schmidt to attack the whole anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary syndicalist and anarchist-communist mainstream of anarchism.

The ZACF therefore welcomes the Anarkismo proposal for a broad and international and inclusive anarchist and syndicalist commission of enquiry into the Schmidt affair ( http://anarkismo.net/article/29047). This would be initiated by, but not controlled by, Anarkismo, and its composition would also not be determined by either the accusers or the accused.

It is our view that this is the best way forward on the matter, and it is our view that the commission should provide a ruling on the basis of access to all materials, including primary materials (e.g. interview transcripts, documents attributed to Schmidt, full access to Schmidt’s pseudonymous online user accounts), from all parties, accusers (we include the sources used by Reid Ross and Stephens) and accused, as relevant to the case, all materials and all interviews to be date-stamped, clearly identified and complete.

The commission should be able to ask questions of all parties involved in the affair. Thus we also urge the “anonymous” sources cited by Reid Ross and Stephens to come forward to the commission (not the public) and clarify their positions, and their relation to the events they describe.

This will allow an evaluation of both the allegations against Michael Schmidt, and Schmidt’s defence. It will enable space for the clarification of each position, as well as to address apparent inconsistencies and gaps in the arguments of both sides (both against Schmidt and for Schmidt) at the current stage. Hopefully these issues in the arguments of both accusers and accused can be easily explained. It will allow the chronology of events to be clarified, and further evidence to be secured where necessary.

*2D. FACT: ZACF Questioned Schmidt When Similar Allegations were made from 2011 Onwards

Since it has been stated by Reid Ross and Stephens that ZACF had “double standards” regarding Schmidt [5] and also implied that ZACF was aware of, but ignored, allegations and evidence against Schmidt similar to that now being presented by Reid Ross and Stephens, it is important to set the record straight.

As indicated, Schmidt left the ZACF with a letter dated 12 March, 2010, having already stepped down to “supporter” status in an email of 25 May 2009 citing work pressures, personal problems and being “burned out.” He was in the aftermath of a divorce, facing financial and job issues, ill and evidently deeply unhappy. Later he would undergo counselling for various issues.

In 2011, ZACF was made aware that Schmidt was maintaining at least one active online profile, under pseudonym, in the far-right internet scene – it was also reported to us that he had been seen wearing a World War 2 German, possibly Nazi, cap. There was also a claim that Schmidt may have voted for the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), the main Afrikaner nationalist political party, in 2009.

By this time ZACF had very little contact with Schmidt, as opposed to when he was an active ZACF member, and subsequent contact has also been sporadic.

But obviously the charges were all taken extremely seriously. Even though Schmidt had left the ZACF, the ZACF confronted Schmidt on the charges in 2011. His explanation was the same as that he would later make in reply to the 2015 allegations. He stated that he had been doing infiltration from the mid-2000s during the treason trial against the racist white “Boeremag” cells. He denied wearing any specifically right-wing regalia, but stated he sometimes wore military items and surplus, including a black tank commander’s cap (which he stated was not an SS/ Nazi cap). It must be stated that ZACF members never actually saw Schmidt wearing any Nazi/ SS/ tank commander’s cap. He has never admitted to voting FF+ to ZACF. (Note: we will return to the FF+ issue in Section 3J).

As Schmidt was no longer a member, he was not subject to any sort of collective responsibility or organisational discipline, and there was little more we could do.

And since Schmidt had a long record as a left-wing union, community and civil rights activist and radical, in South Africa and elsewhere, his numerous articles and books, and his social and personal life, comrades were inclined to accept his defence.

There is no evidence that Schmidt pursued a sustained rightist agenda in the ZACF (also see Section 3). The work we saw when he was a member conformed to fairly standard anarchist and syndicalist positions. The only exception was his 2008 “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement” document – but he soon formally repudiated it.

So, ZACF did question him closely in 2011, but in the end, we took him at face value, were shaped by our own experience of him, and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

In hindsight, perhaps this was a mistake; perhaps a deeper investigation was warranted, but given the evidence we had to hand, which was largely second hand testimony, and given Schmidt’s record and given his status as a long-standing comrade, we were inclined to trust him.

When similar allegations resurfaced over the next few years (sometimes with additional elements), ZACF again acted, questioning Schmidt several more times. He argued the same basic defence on each occasion. Of course repeated allegations about Schmidt were worrying, which is exactly why he was questioned again, and why the matter was discussed internally on each occasion. Although we had many internal debates around the issue, we did not raise the allegations to other anarchist-linked projects with which he was associated, because we had accepted his claims and credibility.

Particularly, we debated whether or not we should inform other anarchist projects to which Schmidt was associated, namely the Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (IATH) and Anarkismo, about concerns raised that Schmidt was associated with the radical right. In the end we decided not to, since we had accepted his explanations for those of his online personas we were aware of pending more information, and since we were aware of the inevitable and irreparable damage that allegations of this nature would do, regardless of their accuracy. In hindsight, this was perhaps a mistake and we apologise to IATH and Anarkismo, anyone else who might feel aggrieved, if we erred in bringing to their attention the concerns and accusations around Schmidt sooner, such that they could make an informed decision as to how to relate to him.

The ZACF did not report these investigations online or publicly, because we do not report our internal decisions or investigations online, nor do we publish dossiers on current and former members. The ZACF also did not issue any public statements on these investigations partly because we do not believe that such issues can be usefully addressed through the online debates and storms that invariably follow. What seems to be fostered, instead, by a public practice of this sort is a climate of flaming that hampers movement building. And since we accepted his explanations, it would not have made sense for us to issue warnings of some sort about him either.

Many people have passed through our ranks, as well as through our projects. It is not reasonable to monitor them all. And we are surely no more obliged to author and issue public exposes on them in subsequent years than, for example, the AK Press collective is required to issue public statements on its own ex-members. And we do not consider ourselves beholden to an imagined online “anarchist” community that does not exist.

But even if public reporting on former members was essential and valuable, and if there was something to report, it would be impractical. There is no anarchist correspondence committee, no annual summit, no shared media or platforms – indeed, not even a common anarchist or syndicalist public sphere, and certainly not a global one. The Western-dominated world of “anarchism” on Facebook is part of the problem here, not the solution. We hold ourselves accountable to our principles and politics and allies, and we do not place our energies on an imagined anarchist community, online or elsewhere.

The fact is also that ZACF had (and has) other more pressing projects, and cannot invest its limited resources in running detailed investigations into former members and supporters.

Our focus is work in the black working class, not on anarchists and ex-anarchists, or the left more generally (see Section 3L). If Schmidt had still been a member or a supporter, when the claims were made, the charges against him would have assumed top priority. But a major investigation into Schmidt, over months, well after he left our ranks, would have been strange. It would not serve a clear purpose to our actual militant work, and every day spent on it would have been a day lost for actual, important militancy – as has been the case with developing this statement.

To avoid misunderstanding: if ZACF is approached by journalists, researchers or comrades seeking comment on, or information on, an important issue, we always try to make ourselves available. So, we do not issue public reports, but we happily enter into a constructive engagement with the public, including the press.

ZACF does not believe that the discussion on social media platforms has been productive, and should you wish to engage us, please contact us directly (at the details provided above).

It must be clearly noted at this stage:

1. Schmidt’s online activities, as above described and as admitted by Schmidt, were not endorsed, commissioned or authorised by the ZACF. The ZACF finds much of what he wrote through his online personas vile and disgusting: we are totally appalled and confused by what we agree are racist and often fascist positions that underpin his Stormfront and “strandwolf” blog posts; we are really struggling to come to terms both with the accusations and the responses he has given – although we retain open minds. Those of us that worked with him struggle to reconcile this with the person we knew and worked with;

2. We cannot comment on the methods and ethics of undercover journalism: we lack the expertise.

3. If it is the case that Schmidt was involved in undercover investigative work, we believe he should have informed us and his sometime co-author, Lucien van der Walt, of this from the start. It is unacceptable that the ZACF should first have heard, from third parties around 2011, of some of these online activities;

4. We distance ourselves completely, from each and every right-wing, offensive statement Schmidt made through any online personas or groups or sites or boards, including under any and all names, regardless of the explanations given for such statements or activities;

5. We find it unacceptable to read, in Schmidt’s two 2015 statements [2], his admission that he was not completely forthright or comprehensive about all elements of his online activities when confronted by the ZACF;

6. We feel absolutely betrayed by Schmidt’s now-admitted failure [2] to inform ZACF that he knew the identity of a National Intelligence Agency (NIA) spy moving in left circles that overlapped with ours;

7. The ZACF, as stated, did not endorse (or ignore, or put a positive spin on) a problematic 2008 document by Schmidt entitled “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement,” but on the contrary, formally repudiated it (as did Schmidt that same year);

8. If the accusations are proven true, ZACF will take all appropriate steps. Proven accusations would indicate activities and views completely at odds with the positions and practice and social composition of the ZACF, the class-struggle, anti-racist and anti-oppression anarchist and syndicalist traditions ZACF champions, and manifest dishonesty on the part of Schmidt. ZACF would have been the primary victim of Schmidt’s activities;

9. If Schmidt is proven guilty, he must bear the consequences of his actions. Conversely, if the opposite is true, his accusers must bear the consequences of their actions. We do suspect, however, that reality is likely to be far messier.

*2E. FACT: ZACF has Not Yet Taken a Position For or Against Schmidt in 2015/ 2016

Note that we do not, in this statement, discuss whether Schmidt is indeed guilty of any or all of the charges made in the 2015 articles and claims by AK Press, Reid Ross and Stephens.

Historically we have accepted Schmidt’s explanation, but we recognise that an extensive case has now been made against Schmidt, and that new evidence has emerged. This new material and debate merits careful reflection and evaluation. The same is true for the counter-case made by Schmidt.

We believe there are problems with some of the statements made by both the accusers of Schmidt against Schmidt himself, but also in Schmidt’s responses to these accusations.

For example (this list is not comprehensive), Reid Ross and Stephens have raised important issues that Schmidt needs to address more fully: these include (this is not a comprehensive list) allegations about tattoos and right-wing accessories (including an inconsistency in his explanation with regards to his knowledge of the right-wing significance of these), that he voted for the right wing Freedom Front Plus in 2009, and the extent to which his claimed undercover research on the white right has in fact led to publications.

And Schmidt has raised some issues that Reid Ross and Stephens need to address more fully: these include (this is not a comprehensive list) allegations of invented quotes and facts, character assassination, unethical journalism, and selective use of evidence.

These may all be open to innocent explanations: we keep an open mind on all sides. But for now there are some holes in both cases.

We will make a detailed submission to the proposed commission, raising our concerns about both sides’ positions, claims and evidence. We will also make available additional materials and answer questions.

We do not assume in advance that the affair will boil down to a simple matter of choosing either the side of AK Press, Reid Ross and Stephens, or of Schmidt, or the simple either/ or choice between two possibilities – either the AK Press/ Reid Ross and Stephens narrative, or the Schmidt counter-narrative –around which it has been constructed.

There may be other ways of understanding the events, and the data, besides those presented by either AK Press, Reid Ross and Stephens, or by Schmidt.

Last, ZACF will be guided by the findings and recommendations of the proposed commission, and will address all the allegations against Schmidt, and his defence, in a separate statement at the conclusion of the commission's investigations.

This being said, the ZACF believes that this stance does not prevent us from defending our organisation and our political tradition.

We wish to reaffirm that we have no personal issues with either Reid Ross or Stephens, or objections to being critiqued.

We appreciate an email to ZACF by Reid Ross stating, “You have only my deepest respect for carrying on your incredible work” and he was “deeply sorry” if the articles created “trouble” for ZACF. He also stated, “It was always my intention to remove both your collective and Lucien [van der Walt] from the investigation in such a way that would prevent a kind of ‘witch hunt’ effect” (email to ZACF, 27 December 2015). We also note he describes our work as “incredible” and “strong” (27 December 2015).

We appreciate this apology and the sentiment that comes with it. We also acknowledge that the consequences we have suffered may have been unintentional. But we cannot forget that this email comes in the aftermath of the articles. If the intention was to avoid a “witch hunt” then it’s essential to get facts right, to avoid inaccurate claims, to get in contact with ZACF for its side of the story prior to publication, and to draw very clear distinctions between the parties, not just in an email sent after the fact, but publicly and explicitly, including in the structure of the articles.

The fact of the matter is that Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles continually make very specific and damaging allegations about the history and politics of the ZACF, in pursuit of the case against Schmidt. ZACF is presented in the worst possible light throughout the 2000s, and more positive comments on the ZACF from 2010 onwards are framed as a break with a period when ZACF was subverted by an allegedly fascist and racist Schmidt.

Given that, as we shall show below, these claims are altogether false, this indicates a serious lack of respect for preserving the reputation and work of an African and majority-black anarchist/ syndicalist and revolutionary group, including the dignity and reputation of its black members and former members, by two white Americans, backed by an American publishing company.

Our critique of the articles centres on process and outcomes, not personalities, and we have to defend the truth.

The next aim of this statement is to clarify the record of the ZACF, including Schmidt’s role in ZACF, and ZACF’s relations to Schmidt. ZACF completely rejects the claims made against and about ZACF by Reid Ross and Stephens. These claims are at odds with easily verified facts, and distort and misrepresent the history and politics of the ZACF.

Note that we will not be commenting on the quality and scope of Reid Ross and Stephens’ overall research on and case against Schmidt himself. Our focus is on the record of ZACF, and the methodology and framing used, with Schmidt noted only where directly relevant.

In what follows, we will provide commentary on:

1. Reid Ross and Stephens' demonstrably inaccurate claims about ZACF history and politics;

2. How this inaccurate account arises from the use of a very narrow data set; from a failure to make use of numerous other materials, including well over a thousand other documents, all online; a failure to contact the ZACF at any stage before publication, either for information or as the subject of critical reportage; a tendency to ignore contradictory evidence and to ask leading questions; and an excessive and at times misleading use of anonymous sources;

2. How this approach effectively silenced ZACF, including its black working class cadres, in stories about them, including what we perceive to be a disregard for a black ex-ZACF member's dignity and reputation;

3. How these problems were compounded by the articles never being subject to editorial oversight or peer-review, or any “ombudsman” / formal complaints investigation process;

4. How Reid Ross and Stephens' claimed use of an "independent journalist" as a fact-checker as a substitute for these normal publication checks and processes failed to address serious errors of fact and raises more questions than it answers;

4. How further problems arose from serious errors of fact and analysis regarding South African history, political economy and working class politics, taking positions congruent with settler and nationalist historiographies, anti-left positions associated with the South African state and ultra-nationalists, and a generally Eurocentric approach, including reading anarchist and radical right history and politics off US and West European examples;

5. How Reid Ross and Stephens, as well as AK Press, acted without due regard for the safety of ZACF members and supporters, above all black, in the often violently intolerant contexts ZACF operates, in marked contrast to the space given to AK Press to avoid reputational damage and a stated concern with ensuring white and other article “sources” anonymity and safety.

*3A. A Summary of Reid Ross & Stephens’ Inaccurate Claims about ZACF

Although the focus of the Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles is, obviously, on Michael Schmidt, the ZACF makes repeated appearances in their account. There are several obvious reasons for this inclusion: Reid Ross and Stephens posit that Schmidt was a fascist and racist activist from around 2002, and Schmidt was involved in the ZACF from 2003 to 2009; and if Schmidt was (as they claim) involved in promoting some fascist or radical right agenda in the anarchist movement, his activities in ZACF would obviously be of great interest.

Obviously ZACF was not the focus of the articles, but its inclusion was not trivial or irrelevant, and our objections to those claims should be taken seriously, not viewed as arising from some sort of irrationality or stupidity .

A series of very damaging (and we show, misleading), very specific and explicit allegations were made about ZACF.We will not entertain attempts to trivialise this serious situation, by claiming it is unimportant, or that we are emotional or irrational.

What exactly do Reid Ross and Stephens say about ZACF?

Firstly, they claim that Schmidt had sought to steer the ZACF towards some sort of “white nationalism,” and that he did so with increasing success. They claim that he proposed ZACF be racially segregated into “ideologically and structurally separate collectives” at its 2003 founding congress; that he secured the closure of township-based ZACF anarchist “action groups” by or during 2005; that he subsequently secured the “purging” of remaining black members; that he used the December 2007 ZACF relaunch to recreate ZACF as a “white-national” ideological group; and that he finally exposed his agenda by presenting, one “sunny day” in July 2008, a controversial document called “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement” [ https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-seduced-anarchists-around-the-world-chapter-1-1a6fa255b528#.rcupmeyyl – after this called [3] and listed at the end). Schmidt had, by this stage, they claim, “whittled” ZACF down from a formation too broad even “to have a membership roster,” to a group of six members and three supporters, all white and presumably committed to a “white-national” politics.

Secondly, Reid Ross and Stephens make a number of very specific comments and claims about ZACF, which present the ZACF as, at worst, under the control of Schmidt – or, at best, turning a blind eye to Schmidt’s supposed “white-national” project. They imply the ZACF failed to respond to Schmidt’s “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” document [3]. They dismiss a major ZACF project in the Elias Motsoaledi squatter camp in Soweto in the 2000s – a social centre, library, community garden and residents’ organisation – as a fake project controlled by “white members” of ZACF like Schmidt [7].

They also claim there were “double standards” in the “organizational culture Schmidt had helped create at the ZACF,” which meant that, according to “a source,” “Schmidt received no official criticism about voting” in 2009 (supposedly) for the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), the main Afrikaner nationalist political party, “but a female member of the ZACF was disciplined around the same time for wanting to join a feminist reading group” [5]. They also claim that the “feminist reading group” issue led to a “lengthy debate” sometime in 2009 or 2010 over whether ZACF members could join “collectives with ideological differences,” and over the “inclusion of feminism and the recruitment of people of colour” ( https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-seduced-anarchists-around-the-world-chapter-3-7d288d84b170#.eemyf92kt, after this called [5] and listed at the end).

And finally, they suggest that ZACF “grew increasingly open to people of colour after Schmidt’s departure” in 2009, and has “since continued its transition from Schmidt’s era to a far-more inclusive group” [5]. To make this last claim, they have to suggest that Schmidt, having effectively captured ZACF by the start of 2008, somehow subsequently started “losing authority over the ZACF” soon afterwards.

Let us deal with these one by one. These claims are false! They are contradicted by the facts!

*3B. FACT: The ZACF Never Considered any Proposal for “Segregation,” Argued instead for a Black Working Class Focus, in 2003

Reid Ross and Stephens note, correctly, that there is a claim in Schmidt’s 2008 “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” text, that “during the drafting of the ZACF Constitution,” he made an “attempt” to have “(white) rearward collectives and (black) frontline collectives.”

But we can find no evidence to confirm that any such proposal was made during processes that led to the formation of ZACF, including the discussions of the Constitution.

ZACF has an archive of the [struggle-sa] email list of the time, a key space where proposals were made and ideas circulated, as well as one of the means through which draft proposals were circulated. But we can’t find anything that argues for any such thing, as claimed in the “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” text. We have other emails from the time, as well as a file of printed materials and draft constitutions, and there is also no sign of the supposed attempt at or proposal for segregation. ZACF also has in its possession very extensive video footage of the founding Congress, and this also does not show Schmidt or anyone else making any such a proposal.

So, there is no independent evidence from the time that Schmidt or anyone else ever made any such proposal. If Schmidt’s “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” made this claim, it got the facts wrong. Repeatedly citing Schmidt’s 2008 “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” will not change the facts, and it flies in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

The founding Congress, attended by a substantial number of black and white comrades, adopted a slew of detailed, clear Position Papers ( http://zabalaza.net/organise/theoretical-positions-of-the-zacf/). These consistently argued for the maximum unity and internationalism of the oppressed working class, poor and peasants, as the best means to defeat divisions and national, racial, gender and other oppressions and make a revolutionary breakthrough into a new society.

The 2003 constitution of the ZACF is in line with these views. Although some amendments were made in 2007, 2008 and 2013, the substance of the 2003 constitution remains in place. It stresses common class struggle and revolution by the multi-national, multi-racial popular classes (http://zabalaza.net/organise/constitution-of-the-zacf/). ZACF identified (and has always identified) the black working class as the engine of the southern African revolution.

The ZACF was founded by a number of pre-existing anarchist groups, and had a substantial black membership from the start. The groups included the Bikisha Media Collective (BMC) historically based in Johannesburg and Soweto, the ABC-SA, the Black Action Group (BAG) from Motsoaledi squatter camp in Soweto, the Shesha Action Group (SAG) from Dlamini in Soweto, and the Zabalaza Action Group (ZAG) and Zabalaza Books, both based in Durban / eThekwini, including uMlazi township.

BMC had been involved in publishing, workshops, protests, student activism, and in a democratically-run resource centre and venue, along with other progressives, called the Workers’ Library and Museum, in inner city Johannesburg. In 2000, it became part of the larger Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF) coalition. Zabalaza Books was and is a publishing project for leaflets, posters and pamphlets. ABC-SA did prisoner support and anti-repression work.

The “action groups” did a range of activities. BAG initiated what became called the “Phambili Motsoaledi Community Project” (PMCP), which involved building a social centre with a book and tool-lending library, meeting area (and short-lived crèche) and a nearby community food garden, and production of the ZACF-linked local anarchist newsletter “Vuka Motsoaledi.” SAG ran a study group, and some of its members were active in the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee (SECC) campaign to (illegally) reconnect electricity to households’ cut-off for non-payment. Its attempts to start a community vegetable garden along the lines of PMCP were thwarted by the local ANC councillor. ZAG was involved in an effort to organise security guards into a “workers council” and involved in fights against evictions. “Zabalaza” journal had meanwhile been established a bit earlier by BMC and Zabalaza Books.

This is why the ZACF was initially called the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist FEDERATION, as it federated the pre-existing collectives, with the intention that each would remain active. The trick was to find a way to get these often quite different projects working together, beyond simply sharing a common political platform. However, it was always agreed that the “action groups” would be the priority “frontline” of struggle, and that the aim was to build a substantial anarchist presence in the townships and in what was then the main site of black working class struggle to which the anarchists had access: the rapidly growing “new social movements” (a term referring to post-apartheid protest movements, mainly fighting around urban services).

There were some ideas thrown around that BMC or ABC might provide support services for the “frontline” “action groups” but this never meant a racial or class division of labour nor of knowledge-production nor power.

BMC had black key members, was itself directly involved in direct “frontline” work through the APF in townships (and before that, in battles against outsourcing). “Action groups” like BAG and ZAG wrote and published quite extensively.

Ideas, insights and innovations flowed in all directions in the ZACF, not from one set of collectives to another. For example, ZAG comrades and Zabalaza Books played a key role in the establishment of “Zabalaza” journal, and the BAG’s PMCP model was viewed by the rest of the ZACF of the time as “the” model of militant township work, with SAG trying to emulate it.

The only support that BMC or Zabalaza Books could provide was some technical assistance with printing and distributing materials to their sister collectives, and skills sharing in these aspects. ABC did some basic anti-repression work, so its support was a given: it would help comrades, of any collective, who were in trouble with the authorities for political work.

They could not control funds, that is for certain. The basic protocol set up from the start of ZACF was that spending was to be democratically controlled by the ZACF as a whole, not by any member collectives or individuals: everyone who could pay, paid into the pool, and the organisation decided where the money would go (see Section 3E). No individual or collective could use control of finances to sabotage other projects, or threaten to withhold funds to impose its will.

The ZACF was a formal organisation, its members and supporters bound by the ZACF’s Position Papers, Constitution, common perspectives and shared strategy, and dues-payments. Within this framework, the actual actions and tactics of ZACF collectives were, it was agreed at ZACF’s founding, to be decided through democratic discussion, at Congresses as well as at other collective forums. Local groups were to take initiatives, and the “action groups” to drive the ZACF.

And any part of the core documents or rules could, likewise, be changed, if a democratic procedure was followed. Debate within ZACF was encouraged, although it was intended that comrades adopt common positions in public.

Reid Ross and Stephens’ discussion of the 2003 ZACF founding is a bit of a red herring: it claims that there was a “relative silence that followed the defeat” of the 2003 “proposal” for segregation that “raises critical questions.”

But this is not correct. The proposal did not exist, so it was not defeated and there was no “relative silence” over it either.

*3C. FACT: The ZACF Never “Purged” Township Groups or Members

Reid Ross and Stephens are equally incorrect in their account of developments in ZACF from 2003 to 2007. They insist, as noted above, that there was a push to close down township groups, followed by a “purging” of remaining black members, driven by Schmidt, who they claim “whittled down” ZACF by pushing out black members.

This is completely false!

Only one person was ever formally asked to leave the ZACF in the 2000s, and this was a white student. Schmidt did not close down the “action groups” BAG, SAG and ZAG. He was not even part of ZACF in 2006, when much of this was supposedly happening, having resigned from active duty and attending meetings in January (Schmidt email to [zabfed] list, 4 January 2006). (He would rejoin ZACF sometime later, as a member, then drop to supporter in 2009, then leave entirely in early 2010).

The decline of some early ZACF collectives was the product of a range of factors, but not of ZACF activities, nor of any sinister subversion of the ZACF.

ZACF was formed within a massive upsurge of struggle locally and internationally, including the rise of South Africa’s “new social movements.” The APF (to which BMC and then ZACF via BMC were initially affiliated) was formed in 2000 as a coalition of a number of these movements in Gauteng province, like the SECC. The Landless People’s Movement (LPM) was launched in 2001, as an effort to unite rural people and urban shack-dwellers. The Social Movements Indaba (SMI) was formed in 2002 as an effort at a countrywide body, linking APF to similar formations in other provinces.

(This was the milieu and these were the struggles through which contact was first made between many of the collectives that came together as ZACF in 2003).

But by 2005 the wave was receding, with a widespread decline in political activity, fewer spaces to organise in, less number of people interested in radical ideas or in joining organisations, and fewer victories from struggles. The LPM, for example, was well on its way to becoming a mainly urban-based squatter camp movement, active in a few cities only.

Also, as always happens, some comrades grew tired, disillusioned or burned out, and moved off politics.

By the end of 2005, ZACF was certainly smaller than in 2003, and entered, that year, into a difficult period that would last years. But this decline, and these difficulties, were closely tied to the general decline in levels of struggle and mobilisation happening at the time.

A range of ZACF collectives withered away, not just the “action groups.” By 2005, the BMC was effectively defunct as a distinct group and some of its members had drifted away from ZACF as well. ABC-SA closed down the same year, as the key people involved got drawn into other ZACF activities.

SAG was always fragile, and its efforts to form a project along the lines of the PMCP initiated by BAG were not a success. Meanwhile, its key militant was won over to a Marxist group involved in the SECC, and SAG did not long survive his departure.

ZAG fell apart when two key members left. One of the two dropped out of politics altogether. The other relocated from Durban when he got married, but he stayed in ZACF and kept Zabalaza Books, which had started in Durban, going. The end of the ZAG effectively meant the end of the ZACF in Durban.

BAG numbers also declined and the BAG-initiated MCR of 2005 was “captured” by a rival political faction – partly because BAG did not have the strength to defeat this coup.

The loss of key figures in BAG, SAG and ZAG – and the collapse of SAG and ZAG – was a source of great distress to ZACF, viewed by ZACF members and supporters as disasters. This is exactly why many efforts were made to reverse the situation.

Happily, although ZACF was shrinking in South Africa and becoming a mainly-Gauteng-based formation, it was expanding in interesting ways, albeit on a small scale, in neighbouring countries.

The BAG recruited two comrades from Swaziland, who often stayed in Motsoaledi, and these later formed a small, short-lived ZACF section in Swaziland. The ZACF’s Swaziland section did some underground work, despite intense repression, and was falsely accused by the Swazi press of a bombing campaign (“Times of Swaziland,” 15 January 2006; and ZACF letter to “Times of Swaziland,” sent 18 January 2006).

Another encouraging development in 2005 was the establishment of contacts with a group in Zimbabwe, the distribution of material into that country, solidarity, recruitment to ZACF, and a connection that continues to the present.

But these were not enough to offset the losses suffered, and did not remove ongoing challenges and difficulties.

Most ZACF members were unemployed, or relied on short-term low-paid jobs. Our unemployed South African and Swazi comrades struggled to get by: there is no unemployment grant in South Africa’s much-vaunted post-apartheid state welfare system, nor any in Swaziland, and our comrades were often jobless.

Various personal pressures were also felt by comrades, white as well as black, and these stresses were compounded by the pressures of the ambitious programme of ZACF work falling onto the shrinking number of ZACF militants.

And there were very few new recruits.

Some work fell away, despite efforts: for example, work in the APF, a core ZACF activity in its early years, withered.

And the disappointments demoralised people, and personal frictions and mistrust grew, as they often do in such situations.

Last, although we have stressed the problems created by objective conditions, it would be remiss of ZACF not to also note some of the weaknesses in political practice and theory that bedevilled the formation in its early years. The ZACF programme was ambitious, but also quite vague in terms of timelines, clear objectives, and trade-offs. This often led to ZACF work centring on attending as many marches and meetings, and doing as much solidarity work and propaganda, as possible – without setting measurable targets, and without much strategic planning. At the same time, too little time was put into reflection and debates, or into careful recruitment and internal education and cadre development. This neglect also meant that members and supporters, both white and black, had different understandings on some key issues – and these were concealed by the focus on doing as much as possible, rather than doing a few strategic things very well.

In closing, it is just not accurate to claim (as do Reid Ross and Stephens) that Schmidt had somehow engineered the situation of decline in the “action groups” and other areas, as some sort of effort to close activities or “purge” people. He did not have the power to do so, and there were, in any cases, no people “purged.” A very complicated situation is caricatured by arguments that read ZACF history onto some sort of alleged plot by Schmidt.

*3D. FACT: ZACF Mass Work in Motsoaledi, Soweto as Against Reid Ross & Stephens' Disrespect for Comrade Nyalungu and Dismissal of PMCP/ BAG

During October 2015, Reid Ross contacted black ex-ZACF founder member comrade Mzamani Philip Nyalungu to ask about “white supremacy” in the ZACF.

Comrade Nyalungu is a seasoned black African working class militant, a founder member of the ZACF and MCR, the moving force in the BAG and PMCP, and was involved in the APF- and SECC-led struggles of the early 2000s. He organised in the Motsoaledi shack settlement in Soweto, where he and his family then lived. He co-ran the red-and-black painted building ZACF constructed as a social centre, operating classes and workshops and providing a space for local students to do homework, wrote most of the copy in the ZACF-linked local newsletter “Vuka Motsoaledi,” co-organised and participated in protests, and worked in the PMCP farm.

Despite personal and family challenges, comrade Nyalungu was and is a working class fighter. Before moving to anarchism, Comrade Nyalungu had been involved in a Marxist group, earning the nickname “Karl Marx.” Before then, in high school, he spoke out against corporal punishment, sexism and stigma towards people with HIV/AIDS, and was expelled without finishing his studies. His family placed him under severe pressure due to his regular unemployment and militant work.

He was arrested several times for his political work as an anarchist, and also suffered various threats and intimidation. For example, he was arrested with another comrade on 3 September 2005, after picketing at voter registration under a “No Registration! No Vote!” slogan, and holding a mass meeting against elections in Soweto. They were released the next day after the local people protested, in their numbers, by halting registration – surely an indication of his credibility in the community as an anarchist cadre.

On 2 November 2015, comrade Nyalungu sent a long written reply to Reid Ross, and a revised and expanded version soon afterwards. The statement included intensely personal glances into the comrade’s life and struggles, as well as important testimony on the ZACF of the time including Schmidt. In the same letters Comrade Nyalungu reflected candidly on ZACF and individual failings at the time, and suggested it was important “to honestly reflect in writing perhaps” and “even make some suggestions on how to ensure “the same problems did not arise again.”

Comrade Nyalungu (letter of 3 November 2015) stated he met soon-to-be ZACF anarchists, including Schmidt, during the 2002 meetings against the World Summit on Sustainable Development then being held in Johannesburg. Other ZACF comrades “helped financially which kept our activities and us lively” in the PMCP, and tried to “help me to become financially independent and out of poverty,” including with aid for fees to complete high school and then, later, to register for a law degree at the University of the Witwatersrand. He also stated specifically that:

“There was nothing like ‘white supremacist’ tendency that I can say I witnessed from comrade MS [Schmidt] or L… I regard the moments when comrade MS was annoyed by me as normal and anyone would have responded the same or worse … In my experiences these comrades were always there when I needed their support. I remember one day coming from May-Day rally in Swaziland … I got arrested at the boarder gate on the Swaziland side. I had political materials enough to have me assassinated by the regime agents … I made a very quick call to comrade MS and within few minutes comrade L [Lucien van der Walt] called the Swazi border where I was detained. He warned them he's my lawyer and asked them to let me go immediately. That was a priceless call because it saved my life from the jaws of the beast.”

He also stated that he was aware that certain people in South Africa (including one now cited as a key witness in the Reid Ross and Stephens articles) had an on ongoing “vendetta against comrade MS and L” and made allegations that were “revolting”: “I blame myself for not making a scene on a spot.”

Comrade Nyalungu closed with a statement that while he had some conflicts with certain former ZACF comrades (black and white, but not Schmidt), “I would like to thank all ZACF and fellow comrades who honestly challenged and are honestly challenging the status quo which is ruthlessly prejudiced to the poor and oppressed.”

None of this testimony was quoted in the articles, including in the three pieces that appeared after it was sent, and it was not acknowledged in any “errata” sections either. Not enough was done to ensure that Comrade Nyalungu was properly informed that a series of articles about Schmidt (and ZACF) were being published at the time (Nyalungu, email of 30 November 2015). He heard about the articles weeks later from a friend.

Nor was comrade Nyalungu informed that Reid Ross spent a fair amount of a subsequent article [7] undermining his reputation with some demonstrably inaccurate and unfair claims that we feel amount to character assassination. This means also, unfortunately, that the comrade, the subject of critical reportage, was not contacted before publication for comment, or offered a proper right-of-reply.

The article by Reid Ross presented BAG/ PMCP as “composed largely of one man”, “a young black South African named Philip” who was “interested in cultivating urban gardens,” his “main project … a community garden,” which he wanted to turn into a “social centre.” He was, Reid Ross claims, “used” as the “face of anarchism” by whites, paid to “keep the garden up” and somehow made “dependent on ZACF” [7]. When this “had become an encumbrance,” funding was cut by the “white members.”

The facts just do not fit this story. The presentation of comrade Nyalungu as someone “used” by ZACF for a time and later dropped as an “encumbrance” presents the comrade as a passive dupe, and completely disregards his long track record as an activist in the Marxist then the anarchist movement, and in the “new social movements.” The presentation of his work as basically that of someone hired to “keep the garden up” misrepresents his character, commitment and politics, involving militant work in both South Africa and Swaziland, arrests, prolific anarchist writing, organising work, and his role in founding and shaping the ZACF, in which he was a leading figure.

No recognition is granted that the PMCP model was fundamentally invented by Nyalungu, and involved rather more than “cultivating urban gardens.” The reduction of the PMCP to a garden, and of comrade Nyalungu to a gardener hired by ZACF for publicity, ignores the larger core PMCP project: building, through a social centre, community vegetable garden, township newsletter, meetings, mobilisation and the MCR, a hoped-for bastion of working class counter-power and anarchist influence in Soweto and the APF.

It is no wonder that comrade Nyalungu’s PMCP initiative, and the work of BAG, was viewed by the ZACF of the time as “the” model of militant township work. And, as our comrade stated to Reid Ross, there are many important lessons to learn from the short-comings of the PCMP and ZACF, for future work. The issue is not whether BAG/ PMCP/ ZACF were perfect – nothing is, making it the duty of real revolutionaries to learn from past mistakes – but to present an accurate picture.

Reid Ross’ discussion of comrade Nyalungu and of his work, is deeply problematic, with the comrade the only person in the seven Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles, besides Schmidt, who is criticised by name.

This can be construed as racist: Reid Ross and Stephens may have grounds to treat Schmidt harshly, but why treat a black working class comrade in this manner, effectively calling him a stooge and a dupe?

Similarly, comrade Nyalungu’s statements on the ZACF that he helped build were not cited. And while the voice of a black ZACF ex-member was left out, Reid Ross and Stephens repeatedly cited, without qualification or criticism, the claims about ZACF by two white ex-ZACF members as self-evidently true (these being Schmidt’s statements about ZACF history in his 2008 “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement,” and the testimony of a person who was in ZACF 2007-2009 – see Section 4).

This dismissal of black testimony, too, can be construed as racist.

And the notion that black left-wing militants are dupes or sell-outs to whites is deeply problematic, tied into a racialised anti-left discourse rooted in colonialism, but today associated with the South African state and ultra-nationalists (Section 5A).

*3E. FACT: ZACF Spending and ZACF Democracy

As noted in the last section, Reid Ross and Stephens present the ZACF as having dubious financial practices that enforce racial hierarchies.

These are very serious charges, and the record needs to be set straight. ZACF does not raise funds from donors and it is not an NGO: it is a membership-based organisation, funded by dues. ZACF funds are slight; its main resource is the work of its militants; it has no employees or staff or offices.

All employed ZACF members are obliged to pay dues into ZACF, with unemployed members encouraged to donate what they can, regular dues being unlikely. The use of the monies collected this way is democratically decided upon. No one is permitted to withhold dues on the grounds of disagreement with a democratic ZACF decision or to use their contribution as a lever to impose their views. Failure for working members to pay dues is, instead, grounds for suspension from ZACF.

ZACF money is spent on ZACF projects, and ZACF projects are democratically agreed upon. ZACF spends on printing, venues, transport, food, media and related expenses arising from its projects. Where possible ZACF invests in physical resources linked to its work: this is why ZACF provided building materials and paint, tools, books, shelving and TV/ DVD to the PMCP initiative in the 2000s, just as ZACF later purchased a photocopier for its propaganda.

ZACF is well aware that many of its low-income or unemployed members and supporters cannot always bear the financial burdens of militant work. This is why ZACF has assisted with transport, airtime, travel, food and related costs incurred in ZACF-mandated work.

At one stage in the mid-2000s ZACF experimented with having a full-time “organiser” post, the organiser to receive a stipend to enable full-time militant work, but this was controversial and closed. Comrade Nyalungu did important political work for ZACF before being appointed to the short-lived ZACF “organiser” post, and he remained politically active in a range of areas after the post was abolished.

(An “organiser” post was later re-introduced in ZACF around 2012, but this was not a position that received a stipend and it had a different mandate).

But there is no system of financial incentives for carrying out mandates and militant work, regardless of whether the work is carried out well or badly. Rather, ZACF comrades collectively decide on projects, and on the funds and mandates that follow. ZACF comrades report back on mandates in ZACF meetings, taking direction, approval or criticism, from the house.

Admittedly, some comrades who earn more income sometimes, in a personal capacity, help comrades who earn less when dire personal situations arise. And, given South Africa’s colonial and apartheid history, the better-off comrades tend to be white. Such basic human solidarity is not limited to ZACF’s own members or supporters. For instance, in 2014, ZACF people raised travel funds so that former steelworkers could get medical reports allowing them to access occupational compensation, and in 2015, ZACF members donated food to students involved in sleep-in protests.

This is basic human solidarity, not a nefarious exercise in political manipulation. Should some comrades not eat?

Comrade Nyalungu was not made “dependent on ZACF,” as Reid Ross claims [7]. Like so many young black men in post-apartheid South Africa, the comrade was poor, often out-of-work, trapped in the township ghetto. In a country where unemployment crosses the 30% mark, where no social grant provides for the jobless, and where (in 2012) more than half of workers only earned around $350 monthly, life is no joke.

This is not a world where people can spend hours on social media in coffee shops: the basic struggle in places like Motsoaledi remains around basic electricity, water and sanitation infrastructure and housing. Laptops, smart-phones and uncapped internet are a world away. It is a world of grinding poverty and dust, part of the horrific legacy of apartheid-capitalism that shapes South Africa, trapping millions upon millions of black people. This is one reason why a major ZACF expense has always been transport, so that comrades could travel to meetings and actions: many simply cannot afford mini-bus taxi and train fares.

Individual ZACF comrades sometimes assisted comrade Nyalungu. As comrade Nyalungu noted in his letter to Reid Ross, individual ZACF comrades helped pay for his studies so that he could access better-paid work and be less reliant on family and friends (letter of 3 November 2015).

It is also important to stress here that this assistance continued even after comrade Nyalungu left ZACF in the course of 2006 (see below), and registered for a degree at the University of the Witwatersrand in 2007. “I wouldn’t have been able to get a university entry” without the donations made by “comrade MS,” “JA” and others (Nyalungu, letter of 3 November 2015).

So solidarity was never linked to him doing this action, or that action, for ZACF – it was solidarity, meant to assist a comrade and a friend.

*3F. FACT: The 2007 ZACF Congress Aimed to Rebuild the ZACF Presence in the Black Working Class

As indicated, ZACF was struggling in 2005. There were various efforts made to resolve these internal problems, and reverse the decline, including several special “stratcons” (strategy conferences) in 2005, and a discussion at the ZACF Congress. Efforts to tighten up the system of mandates and membership, to roll out “Red and Black Forum” (RBF) workshops in conjunction with township organisations, and to publish new materials.

However, 2006 and 2007 saw ongoing problems – and, again, these were not unique to ZACF but common to many formations including the “new social movements.”

Comrade Nyalungu resigned from ZACF during 2006 – he was never expelled or “purged” [3] – and started full-time university study in 2007. It is important to note this did not completely end the ZACF role in Motsoaledi or with comrade Nyalungu. The comrade remained on the ZACF e-mail list of the time (e.g. Nyalungu email to [zabfed] list, 31 March 2007), sent articles (e.g. Nyalungu email of 30 August 2007), requested a ZACF workshop in Motsoaledi in August 2007, and tried to launch a new community structure in Motsoaledi the month after: ZACF minutes: 14 August 2007, 8 September 2007. Comrade van der Walt resigned in 2007, but had withdrawn from active ZACF work in 2006.

The Swazi ZACF comrades like “MK” had previously spent a good deal of their time in South Africa, participating in BAG and PMCP, but started to spend most of their time in Swaziland in this period. Although the Swazi comrades were active in that country, work was difficult in its repressive political environment, and coordination between the South African and Swazi ZACF sections became very cumbersome.

The PMCP and BAG declined and fell apart. This was not because funding was cut by the “white members” of ZACF as Reid Ross asserts [7], but because three key activists were now no longer involved, as indicated in the previous two paragraphs. The key resource of a formation like ZACF is, after all, not money, but the time and energy of its militants.

After lengthy discussions, it was decided that it no longer made sense to run the ZACF around the original collectives and projects, many obviously defunct. Earlier efforts in restructuring in 2005 and 2006 to deal with the issues were judged inadequate. The ZACF’s 1-2 December 2007 Congress formally dissolved the ZACF as the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist FEDERATION and immediately reconstituted the ZACF as the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist FRONT. This was based on individual membership and on task teams/ working groups on specific issues, rather than the old system of collectives (Congress Minutes, 1 and 2 December ZACF meetings, 2007).

The ABC-SA (which had recently been re-established), was hived off: it “would no longer be a ZACF collective,” but “existing ABC members” from ZACF “would maintain membership of both” (Congress Minutes, 1 and 2 December ZACF meetings, 2007). It was hoped this would revive the ABC-SA and draw new people in.

It was also decided to separate the Swazi and South African ZACF sections. The two-country structure covering both South Africa and Swaziland did not work efficiently. The second day of Congress was occupied by plans for the now-autonomous Swaziland anarchist group, with comrade “MK” present as mandated Swazi delegate. The new Swazi anarchist group would “set its own agenda” yet remain in close contact with ZACF, which would provide “what materials you require” including propaganda.

Reid Ross and Stephens get this mixed up. They cite Schmidt as stating the 2007 Congress moved ZACF from being a “bi-national” to a “national” group, but assume this meant a shift from a black-white “bi-national” group to a white-only “national” group [3].

But ZACF was only ever “bi-national” in the sense that it briefly had sections in two different countries/ nation states, South Africa and Swaziland. ZACF only became “national” at the end of 2007 in the sense that it was hived off from the Swazi anarchist group and based in South Africa.

So, Reid Ross and Stephens’ claim that the 2007 ZACF congress involved Schmidt “re-founding the group as a “white ‘national’ organization’ in 2007” [3] is inaccurate.

And rather than the Congress taking place against the backdrop of a general “purging” or “whittling away” of members[3], ZACF had black members in 2007, including at the 2007 Congress meetings, and retained some links in Motsoaledi. Certainly the 2007 Congress was not a manoeuvre by Schmidt for a “white-national” project. The decision to restructure ZACF was made by all members, including black and Swazi comrades, with absent comrades polled in advance.

Not one single change was made to the basic political line or project of ZACF at the 2007 ZACF Congress. The aim of the 2005 “stratcons” and of the 2007 ZACF Congress was not to fundamentally change the nature of the ZACF or its project, or its core position. The aim was to rebuild, to revive, and to strengthen the ZACF and its presence and its ability to carry out the black working class-centred revolutionary project on which ZACF was founded.

So, the general picture of ZACF in the first half of 2008 was one of some improvement. New black members and supporters were soon attracted, some quickly becoming leading figures, a student group was formed, and while the PMCP / BAG were sadly defunct, the ZACF was active in a range of other structures (ZACF Activity Report December 2007 to August 2008; ZACF Minutes: 9 February 2008, 1 March 2008, 17 May 2008).

The first half of 2008 saw ZACF:

1. Attend the APF congress as invited “observers,” affiliation via BMC having effectively lapsed; speak at the “One Struggle Seminar” in Johannesburg that linked struggles around people, animals and environment; attend a meeting of the Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP), ZACF having a standing invitation; a member of the ZACF's Gender Working Group also attended the “Building a Progressive LGBTI Movement in South Africa” conference at the invitation of the Lesbian & Gay Equality Project;

2. Hold three Red and Black Forums, one in Protea South, Soweto (at the LPM's invitation), one in Meadowlands, Soweto (at the Soweto Concerned Residents' invitation), and one at the University of the Witwatersrand, partly in order to “focus on certain comrades, who showed an affinity for libertarian ideas, and try to draw them closer to us … with an eye to possibly recruiting them into the ZACF”;

3. Launch an Alexander Berkman Study Circle on anarchism in Soweto, based among LPM, APF and other activists;

4. Participate in a major APF march against electricity price increases;

5. Join the SMI march against the anti-foreigner pogroms that swept South Africa in May, issuing the statement "Against Chauvinism, Against Nationalism"; attend APF-convened meetings to organise responses to the attacks; help launch and affiliat to the new Coalition Against Xenophobia (CAX); get involved with the Anti-Chauvinist Network, along with people from the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI); ZACF members also helped paint anti-xenophobia murals and put up posters, with other activists, and worked for a while with the “Active Resistance” initiative, members of which also ran a “Food not Bombs” project;

6. Publish “Zabalaza” #8 (backdated to December 2007), and the first two issues of the new “Zabalaza News” (a short paper “distributed primarily at demonstrations and amongst social movements activists”); and start production of a ZACF Political Education module series.

However, by any measure the improvements for ZACF were quite limited. And early 2008 saw massive and unprecedented levels of violent riots against people identified as “foreigners” (mainly Africans from other countries), displacing many thousands. These awful events not only disrupted the “new social movements” but demoralised many militants countrywide. The apparent involvement of an APF affiliate organisation in attacks, captured on video, was a particularly bitter pill to swallow.

None of the work of ZACF in this time, however, is in the least compatible with the Reid Ross and Stephens’ claim that the end of 2007 saw Schmidt “re-founding the group [ZACF] as a “white ‘national’ organization’” [3]. ZACF work at this time remained primarily in the black townships of Gauteng, not exactly where a racist “white-national” group would work. Indeed, Schmidt was involved in many of the above activities, an incompatibility between Reid Ross and Stephens and the record.

(It should be noted that Reid Ross cites an “anonymous witness” who claims the ABC-SA “never did anything” in the 2008 battle against xenophobia [8]. According to the 2008 ABC report to the ZACF congress, ABC-SA was not very active, on any issues, in 2008 (ABC Report to ZACF Congress 2008, 13 December 2008, p. 2). However, ZACF participated directly and very actively in CAX and related activities, and sometimes still used the ABC-SA name when doing prisoner, anti-repression and anti-chauvinist work and networking).

In July 2008, Schmidt circulated a controversial document titled “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement.” It must be stated at the outset that the document was not a ZACF document, but issued by Schmidt in his personal capacity.

It must also be stated that the document was seen from the start as highly problematic. This was for three main reasons. Firstly, although it set out to explain the collapse of the “action groups,” it had formulations that were viewed – at best – as “bordering on racism” (ZACF Congress Minutes, 13-14 December 2008). Secondly, the text seemed to advocate a fragmentation of the anarchist movement into racially separate groups. And third, its interpretation and statements about ZACF history, part of its larger analysis of the problems in ZACF, were flawed.

Unfortunately, Reid Ross and Stephens’ account of the important events surrounding “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” [3] is not very reliable and misrepresents the ZACF response to the document.

According to Reid Ross and Stephens, Schmidt was, at the time, “internal secretary” of ZACF when he circulated the text [3]. There was, however, no such post in ZACF. They suggest he held a ZACF meeting to discuss the text in July 2008. However, we cannot find any record of said meeting. They state that the ZACF had, at the time, six members plus three supporters. In fact, it had eight members, plus three formally affiliated “supporters” (ZACF Activity Report December 2007-August 2008). They suggest that the ZACF had evolved, by this time, from an organisation too broad “to have a membership roster” to a much narrower one. ZACF was always a formal organisation, with members bound to the ZACF’s Position Papers, Constitution, perspectives and strategy, and dues-payments, and certainly had a “membership roster”.

In terms of how the ZACF handled Schmidt's circulation of "Politico-Cultural Dynamics …" Reid Ross and Stephens claim, citing an unnamed former ZACF member, that ZACF people did their best to ignore the document [3].

But this story is simply untrue. It leaves out the facts that people strongly disagreed with the document, and that at the December 2008 ZACF congress, attended by black and white comrades, as well as a Swazi delegate, “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” was discussed at some length (Congress Minutes, 13-14 December 2008: 4-5).

The document was flatly rejected there, Schmidt apologised for its racist formulations, and ZACF reaffirmed its focus on the black working class, and opposition to segregated or “separate” organisations as well as to white and black nationalism.

Of course comrades were deeply concerned at the document’s content! But this did not mean people ignored it.

Reid Ross and Stephens cite their ex-ZACF member as stating that ZACF people were “shocked” by “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” [3]. But this actually contradicts their own analysis of the early ZACF. If there was, as alleged, a long record of Schmidt proposing segregation, driving out black members, and so on, no one would have been shocked.

People were “shocked” because the document was so at odds with what people had seen Schmidt, so far, writing, arguing and doing in ZACF – as we stated above, his work that we saw conformed to fairly standard anarchist and syndicalist positions.

But concerns were allayed when Schmidt repudiated “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” at the Congress, where the matter was thrashed out openly.

Reid Ross and Stephens’ account of the ZACF, as noted above, suggests that ZACF had been systematically subverted by Schmidt by this stage. We have already shown that their claims in this regard are simply false.

The developments around “Politico-Cultural Dynamics…” reinforce this critique: if Schmidt had indeed subverted ZACF politics, closed the township “action groups,” purged black members [3] and secured “authority over the ZACF” [5], why did ZACF have black members and supporters in 2008, ongoing relations with Swaziland, and why did both black and white members reject “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …”?

It also needs to be stressed that “Politico-Cultural Dynamics…” had no impact on ZACF political work. From July, when it was issued, until Congress in December 2008, the pattern of ZACF work remained unchanged (ABC Report to ZACF Congress 2008, 13 December 2008; ZACF Activity Report December 2007 to August 2008; ZACF Minutes: 2 August 2008, 28 September 2008, 5 December 2008).

In this period ZACF:

1. Attended the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) general strike against price hikes; attended the Soweto Pride LGBTI march; co-organised CAX actions at the Lindela immigrant deportation centre in Gauteng; and attended the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project picket against an openly homophobic columnist at the "Daily Sun";

2. Distributed copies of "Zabalaza" in Uganda and Zambia; collected personal donations to assist Swazi anarchist comrade "MK," still closely linked to ZACF, and in dire straits after eluding the police; and built links with a Zimbabwean group;

3. Issued numerous statements: with the "Landless Peoples Movement" and shack-dwellers' movement "Abahlali baseMjondolo" against repression of Brazil's MST; under the banner of the Anarchist Black Cross (ABC-SA) against the arrest of US activist Joaquin Cienfuegos in Los Angeles; and its own statements on "Passive Voting or Active Boycott: The True Question of Elections," of "Support for APF and Kliptown Residents" protests, on the "COSATU Strike, Electricity Crisis and Food and Fuel Prices," and the hate-murder of black lesbian Daisy Dube;

4. Assisted independent union GIWUSA's shopstewards with media skills development to launch a union newsletter; participated in APF debates on elections and in the Freedom of Expression Network (FXI); raised money via the ABC-SA for two jailed Cape Flats housing activists; convened a short-lived radical Anti-Chauvinist Network and was involved in launching CAX;

None of this is surely compatible with Reid Ross and Stephens’ allegations that ZACF was subverted by an allegedly fascist or racist Schmidt. (Schmidt was, indeed, involved in many of the above activities).

*3H. FACT: The Revolutionary Politics of “Black Flame”

Reid Ross and Stephens’ claim Schmidt was “in the midst of working” on the book “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism” at the time he issued “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” [3].

This is also incorrect. The book was taken over in 2005 by Lucien van der Walt, and he is its primary author. The manuscript produced by van der Walt went to AK Press in January 2006, van der Walt undertook all revisions that followed, and the PDF proofs came from AK Press in November 2007. That publication was delayed into 2009 does not change the fact that “Black Flame” was already finalised, and that it had been out of Schmidt’s hands for almost four years by the time he presented “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …”

It must be stated that any implication that “Black Flame” shares positions with “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” is spurious.

Reid Ross and Stephens state that the book asserts the “primacy of class struggle and workers’ movements” in a revolutionary, global anarchist struggle [3].

But if this is so, then they must admit “Black Flame” is completely at odds with the politics of nationalism, the radical white right or racism. And it spends a great deal of ink developing a truly global, non-Eurocentric history of anarchism and syndicalism, including a discussion of how the historic anarchist and syndicalist movement opposed imperialism and racism, and played a role in struggles for national liberation and racial equality, with a massive imprint in the Global South and among people of colour.

One clear implication in the Reid Ross and Stephens articles that, because “Black Flame” is critical of labour aristocracy theories (including a variant, American-centred “privilege” theories), it somehow shows a rightist influence [3], is deeply misleading.

Most historic anarchists and syndicalists, including people of colour, and in both the Global North and the Global South, have argued that systems of national, racial and imperial oppression harm all members of the popular classes, not just those directly oppressed (“Black Flame,” pp. 59-60, 298-305, 313-314).

The argument is simply that any partial and short-term benefits were undermined by the larger effects of such systems on the larger working class, peasantry and poor, by dividing it, by promoting cheap labour and intra-class hatreds, by redirecting resources into war and repression from welfare and constructive activity. There would be a differential in the treatment of those facing these special oppressions, and those not. But the differential continually undermined the conditions of those in better conditions, and the wider the divisions and inequality within the popular classes, the wider the differential in wealth and power between the exploiting ruling classes and the popular classes as a whole – including between the ruling classes and the best-off sections of the popular classes.

It is an argument for a systematic specific fight against all forms of oppression, from a class perspective, to create equality and unity within the popular classes, and to fight oppression across the whole society.

Such arguments have been a mainstay of large sectors of Marxist, anarchist and syndicalist and socialist thought, globally.

“Black Flame” shows, for example, that this argument was made by leading Mexican and South African anarchists and syndicalists of colour, citing, for example, such revolutionaries as Práxedis Guerrero of the anarchist Mexican Liberal Party, and comrades of the International Socialist League / Industrial Workers of Africa like T.W. Thibedi.

These claims were not unique to anarchism. For example, Harry Haywood, arguably the most important twentieth-century black American communist, the son of slaves, active in the Communist Party in the deep South in the 1930s and later in the “new communist movement,” argued that white racism against blacks led, not to “privilege” and prosperity for working and peasant whites, but to these whites’ “most outrageous poverty and misery” (H. Haywood, 1948, “Negro Liberation,” International Publishers: New York, pp. 66-67).

The solution for these left currents was unity around a programme to fight for equal rights and the abolition of racial, national and other forms of oppression, as part of a larger class-based struggle for revolution, a principled unity.

Obviously then it cannot be argued that radical critics of “privilege” / labour aristocracy theories are whites seeking to preserve privileges. Since people of colour have been central among these radical critics, and since certain whites are amongst the loudest champions of “privilege” theories, the theories also cannot be mapped onto races. People of different races can be found on both sides of the debate over such theories. And any suggestion that critics of “privilege” / labour aristocracy are rightists is indefensible, unless it is to be claimed that Guerrero, Thibedi and Harry Haywood were rightists.

As we are showing, (besides above, also see below) there is no evidence that — if Schmidt did engage in a radical rightist project, as alleged by Reid Ross and Stephens — the ZACF was subverted.
And there is no evidence that he subverted “Black Flame” either.

While “Black Flame” is not a ZACF book, and has like any books, various flaws, we remain of the view that it is a key and classic text of modern anarchism and syndicalism, and of great value. It is a Global South-centred text that, for the first time, places people of colour, the Global South and struggles against imperialism and racism at the very centre of the history, canon and movements of historic anarchism and syndicalism.

We are well aware that its link to Schmidt may irredeemably tarnish it in the eyes of some, but we would like to suggest that people wait until the commission for a final resolution of the Schmidt affair.

And we would also like to suggest that “Black Flame” has an intrinsic value.

No-one disregards Mikhail Bakunin’s works because his one-time ally Johann Philip Becker later became a close ally of Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin’s works because in 1916 he supported Allied victory in the First World War, Errico Malatesta’s works because his ally Andrea Costa later became a founder of the Socialist Party, or dismisses the Italian socialist tradition because one-time leader Benito Mussolini subsequently pioneered fascism.

No-one should disregard “Black Flame” on the basis of a controversy – which, we stress, is still-unresolved – around Schmidt almost 10 years after the basic book was done – especially given that comrade van der Walt was the book’s primary author.

*3I. FACT: Dispelling the Myth of a ZACF Debate on the “Recruitment of People of Colour” and of ZACF Becoming “Increasingly Open”

According to Reid Ross and Stephens, there was a “lengthy debate” in ZACF sometime in 2009 or 2010 over “the recruitment of people of colour” [5]. Having posited that Schmidt had effectively made the ZACF into a racially segregated group, they also suggest that ZACF “grew increasingly open to people of colour after Schmidt’s departure” in 2010, and a “transition from Schmidt’s era to a far-more inclusive group” [5].

These claims are also false!

As shown above at some length, there was never any stage where the ZACF adopted fascist, racist or segregationist positions or practices. This is an awful slander, and it has no facts to back it up.

There was never a break in the basic political line of the ZACF, never a so-called “Schmidt era” where the ZACF changed its historic positions, never a period when the ZACF was closed to people of colour, only later to become “increasingly open.” The black working class focus and the project of building a black working class anarchist cadre has always remained in place. The “recruitment of people of colour” was a central task, and it continued without end from 2003 to the present. There is no correlation between Schmidt’s presence or absence in ZACF and any such alleged shifts.

And this is also why there is no record whatsoever of any “lengthy debate” in ZACF over “the recruitment of people of colour.”

The simple fact of the matter is that the decline of overall ZACF numbers, and the end of the “action groups” and the PMCP were always viewed by ZACF as disasters – and it is completely impossible to understand ZACF politics, ZACF debates, ZACF responses and ZACF activities unless the basic ZACF focus on a revolution for social and national freedom, centred on the black working class is understood as well.

*3J. FACT: Claims that Schmidt Allegedly Voted FF+ Were Never Ignored

Reid Ross and Stephens claim that Schmidt had definitely voted FF+ in the 2009 general elections, that he received no official criticism from ZACF for doing so, and that the organisational culture he “had helped create at the ZACF” had “double standards” for Schmidt [5].

The FF+ is a small Afrikaner nationalist party and its origins lie in the Afrikaner nationalist right. The FF+ runs in South African elections, winning a few seats. The African National Congress, or ANC, the party of Nelson Mandela, has won every single state election from 1994, and controls the Cabinet. The FF+ was invited to join the ANC’s 2009-2014 South African Cabinet, with FF+ leader Pieter Mulder made a Deputy Minister. The 22 April 2009 national elections had seen ANC, now led by Jacob Zuma, win almost 66% of the vote, partly because of massive support by the ANC-allied Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), and the South African Communist Party (SACP).

But shortly after the 22 April 2009 elections, several ZACF members and supporters saw a voting ink mark on Schmidt’s hand.

Schmidt should have been questioned as soon as the mark was seen. Had he voted? Or had he spoiled his ballot? Why? If he voted, who had he voted for? People were shocked, and there were discussions about what to do, but before action was taken, Schmidt stepped down to “supporter” status citing work pressures, personal problems and being “burned out” (Schmidt, email of 25 May 2009).

Obviously ZACF erred in not acting quickly and decisively on the matter. We made a mistake.

Although supporter status meant Schmidt was no longer involved in meetings and decisions, he was, like other supporters, kept on the then-ZACF e-mail list [ZabFront].

In August 2009, the question of Schmidt’s voting ink mark was raised directly on the [ZabFront] e-mail list, in two emails on 24 August 2009.

Schmidt did not responded to our questions.

ZACF made another mistake: it let the issue slide.

By the time Schmidt left ZACF in early 2010 (resignation message, 12 March 2010), the issue was unresolved.

Schmidt, in a 2015 reply to Reid Ross and Stephens [2], has now admitted voting several times in South African elections. This comes as a surprise to ZACF, as it was not aware of a general pattern of Schmidt voting; a pattern which went against the political line of the ZACF.

However, what needs to be clear is that ZACF had no idea in 2009 as to whether Schmidt had spoilt his ballot, or actually voted, and no idea who he voted, if he voted. The discussions about Schmidt voting in 2009 were concerned with the fact that he had registered to vote, and had either spoiled his ballot or voted, which was at odds with what ZACF was then arguing. There is no record in our extensive archive of minutes and of [ZabFront] emails of Schmidt being accused of voting FF+.

If Schmidt did inform anyone in ZACF that he voted FF+ at the time when action could have been taken (that is, before he left ZACF, since ZACF can hardly discipline outsiders), it was the duty of that person to raise the matter in ZACF. But none of the records that we have from the time show the FF+ allegation charge ever being made in a ZACF forum, by any ZACF member or supporter. Not one of the ZACF members or supporters from the time that we checked with reports having even the faintest idea at the time that, if he had voted in 2009, it would have been for FF+.

ZACF could not act against Schmidt for voting FF+ if a charge was not made, and in the absence of evidence or testimony to back up such a claim.

Schmidt has, to the best of our knowledge, never admitted to ZACF members or supporters that he ever voted FF+. His recent statement is that he voted for socialist and radical black nationalist parties, but never ANC [2].

The ZACF can certainly be criticised for not taking more decisive action against Schmidt for participating in the 2009 election, and for treating him leniently because of his long track record and stature in the organisation and movement. We acknowledge that we made mistakes.

But it cannot be fairly criticised for failing to discipline Schmidt for allegedly voting FF+, when no such charge was laid and as ZACF was unaware of the allegation at the time.

From 2011, when Schmidt was no longer a member or supporter of ZACF, claims that he had rightist links started to be made, and, over time, these started to include the claim he voted FF+ in 2009 (see Section 2D). By this stage, of course, he could hardly be subject to processes of organisational discipline and review.

Which is why ZACF opted for confronting him directly instead, several times (Section 2D). And throughout, he has never admitted voting FF+.

*3K. FACT: Dispelling the Myth of a ZACF debate on the “Inclusion of Feminism,” 2009-2010

2009 saw another tough year for ZACF. Debates are the life-blood of an organisation, but the debates in 2009 revealed a deeper schism.

A senior member of the ZACF (not Schmidt) had begun to consistently act in ways that were at odds with some standard ZACF positions. As the half-hearted response to Schmidt’s voting mark in 2009 had shown, ZACF was often quite lax and not just to Schmidt, and it remained plagued by the problems seen years earlier (see Section 3C): involvement in an endless round of actions and publishing, without clear timelines, objectives and strategic planning, too little reflection and discussion, sloppy recruitment, with real differences on key issues bubbling under the surface.

From 2009, there was a push by one grouping in the organisation to end this situation, by getting the ZACF to adopt a clear programme of action, and concrete targets and timelines, better internal education and clearer recruitment procedures. This sector also wanted to try to surface, and address, some of the deeper divisions on key issues that were being papered over.

A second grouping generally supported the historic ZACF approach, which we have criticised above, and argued for, effectively, doing the same as in the past – but doing it better.

Another grouping openly stated its disagreement with basic ZACF Position Papers and positions, consistently sought to push the ZACF to revise its basic positions, and to bring in other political traditions.

All of this absorbed a good deal of energy, but it was surely helpful in trying to resolve some of the deeper weaknesses of ZACF. And it should be stressed that while personal conflicts did take place, the issues at stake were fundamentally political, going to basic questions of ZACF strategy and operation.

We do not want to rehash old debates for their own sake or to get tied into the conflicts of that difficult time, or into defence of each and every point or event in those debates. Doubtless mistakes were made, and we can learn from them. As we believe we have.

But it is essential to mention this context, in order to correct the misleading account that Reid Ross and Stephens provide of this period. As shown in Section 3I, for instance, there was never any debate over the “recruitment of people of colour,” as this was always seen as essential. The formation of a black working class-centred anarchist movement being a founding principle that shapes all ZACF work.

Reid Ross and Stephens also claim there was a debate in ZACF over the “inclusion of feminism,” also claiming “a female member of the ZACF was disciplined” around 2009 or 2010 “for wanting to join a feminist reading group” [5].

What happened was something very different.

A ZACF member (not Schmidt) set out to found (not “join”) a woman-only group, the activities of which were to have included some reading of a range of feminist texts, painting murals etc. The ZACF person who formed the group was the moving force in the drive to revise the ZACF Position Papers.

The group was created without a mandate, without consulting the organisation or having a collective discussion, and despite the organisation having consistently opposed separate structures, whether on gender, race of other lines.

Implicitly at issue here was whether individual members could simply ignore the democratically agreed positions reflected in the ZACF Constitution, Position Papers, Congresses and minutes. At least until existing positions were changed, in a democratic way, they remained in force.

So, it was only in this sense that the “feminist reading group” issue became a key issue in a basic struggle over the direction of ZACF at the time.

It must be stressed that the issue was never over the “inclusion of feminism”, that this was not, in terms of materials discussed and points made, even a debate about feminism, and that there was no attempt to remove anyone from the organisation over issues of feminism.

These interpretations are misleading. The issues were what type of feminism, and how best to win feminist demands.

ZACF had always supported the “inclusion of feminism,” and took a feminist position at its founding ( http://zabnew.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/fighting-for-womens-freedom-zacf/). What it argued for was that the fight for women’s freedom had to be located in the larger, class-based struggle against all forms of oppression, including against capitalism, with an agenda of revolution, and for a common class-based struggle as opposed to organisations separated on lines like gender, race or nationality.

Analytically, this raised the question of how different forms of oppression were connected in the larger social formation. ZACF documents argued that forms of oppression were intertwined, that oppression by empire, gender and race did not necessarily begin with capitalism and the modern state, but that they were absolutely central to these forms of oppression being produced and reproduced in the modern era. This meant, for example, that women’s oppression did not arise from a timeless and distinct system of patriarchy that was sometimes allied with a distinct system of capitalism. Instead, women’s oppression was closely linked to the rise of class society, changed over time in part due to the evolution of class and state systems, was closely linked to the provision of cheap and free productive and reproductive labour – and benefited ruling class women while, in many ways, harming working class men.

While it is true ZACF did not always engage in specifically feminist work at every stage of its history, by 2008, as shown above, it had a Gender Working Group – formed, in part, to address this – and was participating in various activities around gender and LGBTI issues.

The debate was, it must be stressed, never even framed as one over the “inclusion of feminism”: e-mails, ZACF records and proceedings all framed the issue as the “separate organisations debate”; should ZACF reverse its historic position, and accept, in some situations, “separate” organisations?

ZACF Position Papers and ZACF politics, as indicated, always favoured common struggle.

That is why a “compilation of the main in-depth submissions on the separate organisations debate - for incorporation into the internal bulletin” was produced, and circulated on the ZACF’s then-email list [ZabFront] on 19 April 2010.

So, the issue was whether ZACF should change its position on “separate” organisations, not the “inclusion of feminism.”

In order to dispel any possible assumptions about the dynamics at play in the debate: the debate was not one between feminist women and anti-feminist men. Every other woman member and supporter in ZACF involved in the debate opposed the woman-only and heavily white “reading group” that had been established. Besides the group’s founder, everyone who expressed some sympathy with the action, was a male comrade.

Everyone involved in the debate was for feminism – but only a few, all men besides the person who formed the group, were for the reading group.

So the issue of support for the reading group (a minority position) needs to be clearly distinguished from the issue of support for feminism (the common ground of both sides). The issue of feminism and the issue of “separate” organisations need to be clearly distinguished: the same objections raised about this “separate” organisation would have been raised about any other “separate” organisation.

But the issue of “separate” organisations raised larger issues about overall ZACF theory, and the formation of the “feminist reading group” raised larger issues about ZACF practice.

For example, it revealed deeper, existing differences in understanding of basic issues amongst members and supporters. It also raised clearly the issue of the ZACF’s tendency at the time to operate without clear timelines, objectives and strategic planning, to jump from project to project, and to ignore inevitable trade-offs.

In this specific case, the grouping pushing for a clearer ZACF programme of action was inclined to the view that since ZACF time and resources were limited, choices had to be made. And that the “feminist reading group,” which was seemingly very middle class, white and suburban, would inevitably mean removing time and resources from core ZACF work in black working class communities and struggles. That it was one thing for a ZACF militant to work within or with, an already-existing black, working class feminist or similar group, to promote anarchism in that group, and quite another to initiate a “separate” group in another social constituency, at the cost of core ZACF work.

Although the two groupings might seem, from this account, to have been at complete odds, there were consistent efforts to try and resolve the issues amicably and constructively, and build on the insights that had been generated in the debates.

Heated exchanges in early 2009, for example, were followed by meetings intended to effect reconciliation and solicit apologies. ZACF put in place a process to allow people to make inputs and propose revisions to the Position Papers, and the person who initiated the “feminist reading group” was requested to revise the women’s oppression Position Paper. In effect, she was asked to propose changes to the ZACF’s basic positions. This is not a sign of debate being suppressed: on the contrary, she was empowered to effectively overhaul ZACF positions, including on “separate organisations,” and to present these changes for consideration to the organisation.

The “separate organisations” debate dragged on into 2010, but the revision of the women’s oppression Position Paper did not take place, the person who demanded changes never providing a clear outline of what she rejected, and her “feminist reading group” continued despite the fact that there was a serious discussion in ZACF as to whether this was in line with ZACF positions, focus and strategy, and over the lack of a democratic collective decision or mandate on the issue.

The member, a senior figure in the organisation and an office-bearer, was strongly criticised at a meeting on 17 April 2010 (not “disciplined”) for failing to revise the Position Papers (a year later), or work democratically by imposing the reading group on everyone else – not because of any opposition to feminism. She then walked out of the meeting and resigned by email the same day.

She was not asked to leave, and every effort was made in 2009 and 2010 to prevent any splits or resignations.

She is the white, European, ex-ZACF member that Reid Ross and Stephens keep citing in their account of ZACF history, and is the person who provided access to internal e-mails from the ZACF to the journalists. She was involved in ZACF from the end of 2006, formally enrolled as a member at the end of 2007, and resigned in early 2010.

It was not the departure of this member, or of Schmidt, that led to a new era in ZACF work. ZACF theory and perspectives never changed, the black working class orientation of ZACF never changed.

Change was at the level of strategy and tactics, that is, the application of the theory and perspectives and orientation of ZACF to concrete conditions. Essentially, the sector pushing for a clear programme of action, and concrete targets and timelines, better internal education and clearer recruitment procedures, won out – and ZACF developed and implemented measures addressing all of these points.

This, nothing else, was what the transition in ZACF, dubbed (by some) ZACF 2.0, at this time, involved.

*3L. FACT: Dispelling the Myth of a Debate on Working with “Collectives with Ideological Differences,” 2009-2010

As noted, Reid Ross and Stephens have claimed ZACF in 2009 / 2010 had a “lengthy debate” over whether ZACF members and supporters could join “collectives with ideological differences” [5].

This is not accurate. ZACF did not and does not focus on working with anarchists or even the left more generally. Its focus is on working with and in the actually-existing black working class and its actually-existing organisations, movements and struggles.

ZACF does not aim at the general unity of self-identified anarchists of different tendencies, and it does not aim at forming broad left coalitions.

ZACF does not aim at being a class-struggle anarchist current in a self-identified “anarchist” or “left” milieu, but rather at building a class-struggle anarchist current rooted in the popular classes.
This work will sometimes involve cooperation with other radicals, which we welcome. But such cooperation is always subordinate to the goal of building a popular anarchist movement embedded in working class and peasant movements, in ghettoes, in townships, in labour movements including unions, and in the oppressed nationalities including in national liberation struggles.

Unity among self-described anarchists and leftists is not an end in itself, and is only valuable to the extent that it achieves this goal.

The question is not to unite the radicals, or win them over, but to go to the masses.

In concrete terms, this means ZACF has always argued for working with, and in, groups with which it has substantial “ideological differences.” For example, while openly expressing its criticisms of many elements of formations like, for example, the APF, DLF, CAX, COSATU, GIWUSA, and LPM, the ZACF has chosen to work with, and within these bodies. This is also why, when the ZACF launched MCR through BAG/ PMCP, it deliberately set it up as a non-partisan group, rather than as a pure anarchist formation.

ZACF members are not just expected, but actually obliged, by ZACF rules and strategy to be involved in working class organisations with which ZACF has “ideological differences.” ZACF is not sectarian, and will work with any progressive formation active in the black working class movement.

In closing, ZACF has never debated whether ZACF members and supporters could or should join “collectives with ideological differences.” The issue debated has been which other formations to prioritise and when.

**SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY: SOME REASONS FOR THE PROBLEMS IN REID ROSS & STEPHENS’ ZACF RESEARCH

When ZACF comrades became aware of the Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles, we looked forward to them with interest. Never, however, did ZACF imagine that it would be made so central to the story – or that it would be misrepresented so thoroughly. An opportunity for an interesting and valuable reflection on ZACF and on the anarchist movement in South Africa was, regrettably, lost.

We suggest that the basic reasons for the poor account of the ZACF lie in two areas: the first is a flawed research methodology (which we will discuss in this section), and the second is a problematic theoretical approach (which we will discuss in the next section).

Also note that we are here looking at the process of research around ZACF, with Schmidt noted only where directly relevant – not about any other research into Schmidt himself.

The only cited materials used in the Reid Ross and Stephens’ account of the ZACF are: one document, this being Schmidt’s 2008 “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement”; the testimony of an ex-ZACF member, who is readily identified from ZACF records as involved in ZACF from the end of 2006, formally enrolled as a member at the end of 2007, and resigned in early 2010; and the opinions of outsiders who could have very little direct knowledge of ZACF (as opposed to opinions, or information heard from others).

This is not really an adequate basis to make large, sweeping and damaging claims about ZACF covering almost 10 years, about ZACF from its initiation in 2003 into 2010, claims that have been an important part of the Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles. The few sources used are – as we have shown – manifestly inadequate to substantiate the claims that have been made about ZACF.

TWO WHITE EX-MEMBERS

At the same time, there is a certain credulity towards these sources: what has been skipped is a process of cross-checking claims against other readily available materials (see below).
For example, the source of information for the account of ZACF into 2007 is Schmidt’s 2008 “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” The ex-member cited could not possibly have testified directly of events before the end of 2006, or about events from early 2010: this person could only cover slightly over three out of the 13 years of ZACF history.

It does not make sense, given Reid Ross and Stephens’ own framework that they make uncritical use of “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” as a basic source on ZACF history.

The two journalists routinely present Schmidt as dishonest [7] [8], which means he could also have been dishonest in his analysis of ZACF history in “Politico-Cultural Dynamics”. And given that they spend a lot of time trying to shake his claims on a wide range of issues, by checking these against other sources [7] [8] [9], it is unclear why the same sceptical approach should not have been applied in this instance.

But this did not happen, which leads Schmidt’s 2008 version of ZACF history to be taken as literally true, without considering the possibility that he might have got facts wrong, or remembered things incorrectly, or even been dishonest or re-interpreted the past to bolster a present position.

Because, leaving aside the major political problems with this document, it has another serious problem: as shown in detail in Section 3B, and elsewhere, it has errors of fact in its history of ZACF.

And even if the testimony of the ex-member was absolutely reliable – and, as we have shown above at some length, the version or rendition of that testimony presented by Reid Ross and Stephens, has some problems (see Sections 3I-3L) – it would still have needed to be cross-checked against other data like other direct testimony and written sources.

Besides the one ex-member, no other testimony on Schmidt or on ZACF history and politics is cited from the dozens of other people who have been in ZACF ranks – with the exception of Schmidt himself, who Reid Ross and Stephens view as dishonest [8] – and none from anyone who has served the full 13 years in ZACF.

What outsiders might have heard, or claim to have heard, or might think about ZACF, certainly cannot be taken as self-evidently true.

Reid Ross and Stephens failed to cite a single ZACF document, public or internal, in their accounts: Schmidt’s “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” was not a ZACF document. Discussing numerous articles by Schmidt is irrelevant to this issue: to understand almost 10 years of ZACF, more needs to be done than to use one document and the testimony of one ex-member.

Reid Ross and Stephens made no discernible use of the vast repositories of materials on or by ZACF on Zabalaza’s website www.zabalaza.net, at Zabalaza Books www.zabalazabooks.net, the Southern African Anarchist and Syndicalist History Archive (SAASHA) at www.saasha.net, and elsewhere, including photos and texts, or the numerous articles about or interviews with ZACF which are online elsewhere.

It is evident that Reid Ross and Stephens had access to internal ZACF materials, as opposed to materials publicly available. Access to these internal materials was provided by the ex-ZACF member upon whose testimony Reid Ross and Stephens relied so heavily, the same member who walked out of ZACF in early 2010 after being criticised for failure to implement mandates and acting undemocratically.

For example, their first article [3] is illustrated with a screen capture of part of the front page of Schmidt’s “Politico- Cultural Dynamics of the South African Anarchist Movement.” Although this was not a ZACF document, it is clear from the screen capture that they are working from a copy sourced from a (now defunct) internal ZACF email list of the time called [zabfed]. The [zabfed] list was used to circulate ZACF minutes and reports, as well as provide a space for other discussions. It was followed by a second list called [ZabFront], which is where Schmidt’s “parting letter” to the ZACF (12 March, 2010) was circulated. This letter is also cited by Reid Ross and Stephens [3].
But there is no evidence that [zabfed] and [ZabFront] were mined for the research on ZACF history and politics.

Why not?

One reason could be that Reid Ross and Stephens had full access to, but chose not to cite other internal materials from the [zabfed] and [ZabFront] lists.

Reid Ross and Stephens might have considered what they already had adequate, which, given that they used very few sources indeed, to make very sweeping claims, indicates a lack of diligence in their research. Because, as we have shown, the account of ZACF history and politics provided is deeply flawed. The sources used are manifestly inadequate to the task.

Or they might have chosen to overlook materials that contradicted some of their core arguments, or complicated their overall narrative. This too, would be deeply problematic. Genuine research is based on engaging all the available evidence, and not just that which confirms the views of the researcher, and it is important to deal with, rather than ignore, evidence that challenges these views. Then serious questions have to be asked about balance and accuracy.

Or they might have had access to additional internal materials from [zabfed] and [ZabFront] but withheld them out of consideration and respect for ZACF security or protocols.

But then this principle should have been applied consistently: if it was unacceptable to breach security and important to respect boundaries, then it was, by the same measure, unacceptable to report on internal ZACF matters from verbal testimony, or to cite any emails from [zabfed] and [ZabFront]. (This point is about the principle and should not be misconstrued as suggesting Schmidt’s “Politico-Cultural Dynamics…” had official standing or approval, it did not).

Or alternatively: the source providing Reid Ross and Stephens with internal ZACF materials did not have more materials available, having only kept these out of all the materials generated by ZACF during that person’s period of membership. If so, then more use of other sources would have compensated for the gaps.

Or that source had, but deliberately withheld, additional materials.

If such withholding was done out of consideration for ZACF, then it would not have been appropriate to provide any verbal reports or any internal emails.

If such withholding was based on the argument that only materials relevant to Schmidt should be provided, then this does not explain why materials critical to the Schmidt issue, like the 2007 and 2008 ZACF Congress minutes, emails from 2009 on [ZabFront] raising the issue of Schmidt voting, or materials actually showing ZACF debating race etc. were not provided.

The other option that is left is that only selected materials were provided, in order to present the ZACF in the worst possible light by suggesting Schmidt subverted it and so on.

But that is a manipulation and suppression of evidence, which Reid Ross and Stephens should have been able to identify and correct.

Reid Ross and Stephens also never contacted ZACF during the research. It was only after the last of seven pieces appeared, that ZACF was reached by Reid Ross.

ZACF would have been more than willing to provide access to internal and public materials, and answer questions. As indicated, ZACF has taken a position of keeping an open mind on the Schmidt issues, and wants to get the Schmidt matter resolved.

ZACF can easily be contacted in a range of ways: through its website www.zabalaza.net, where our e-mail address is provided and where there is also a contact form that hundreds have used; through our Facebook site Zabalaza News www.facebook.com/zabalazanews; our magazines and leaflets include contact e-mail, Facebook and phone numbers, and these are available online and in social media. ZACF can also be reached through Anarkismo.net. ZACF is in contact with thousands of people.

In short, it is difficult to view the failure to contact ZACF before publication as a merely technical matter.

It should be noted here that Reid Ross finally got in touch with ZACF on 27 December 2015, more than three months after the first article appeared, and a few weeks after the last one. He stated that he had used an incorrect email address, for which he apologised.

We appreciate the contact, and the explanation.

But we cannot feel quite satisfied. No matter how we read the somewhat contradictory timelines of events provided by AK Press [1] [7], Reid Ross was in contact with that publishing company no later than June 2015, and Stephens had spent “over a year of looking into Schmidt” by the time he contacted it. Reid Ross and Stephens also state “the investigation had been underway since early 2014, more than a year before Schmidt’s former publisher [AK Press] had any inkling of it” [7].

It seems very unlikely that successful contact could not be made with ZACF during this entire period, almost two years, given our online footprint. And we are certain some of the people Reid Ross and Stephens cite in their work on Schmidt and on ZACF could easily have provided our contact details, if a quick Google search did not turn up results. Reid Ross has written in recent months to Anarkismo sister organisations of ZACF: any of these could have put him in touch with us.

Although a defunct email address could have been obtained from old publications or statements, we have no idea why Reid Ross would not have obtained the correct one more easily: we have been using zacf@riseup.net since 22 December 2011, over four years now, and it is easily found online.

And contact after the fact is irrelevant to the research process – it does not affect the substance of the negative and specific allegations against ZACF that Reid Ross and Stephens have already made publicly.

Rather, the failure to contact ZACF is open to two alternative explanations.

There could be hostility to the ZACF, on the assumption for example that ZACF was “covering up” for Schmidt. But this would be an unfounded and prejudiced position, indicating basic hostility to ZACF from the start.

Or it could simply be the result of the already demonstrated failure to research the ZACF properly. One single visit to the ZACF’s website would have shown the correct e-mail as well as the ZACF contact form. Was the site visited even once?

The account of ZACF that has been provided by Reid Ross and Stephens does not, regrettably, show much in terms of making an effort to contact ZACF or consideration for an accurate view, the reputation of the organisation, or the dignity of people associated with ZACF like comrade Nyalungu.

One immediate effect of constructing a story of ZACF history and politics without making use of easily available ZACF sources or engaging ZACF, is to get the basic facts of ZACF history and politics wrong.

Another effect is that Reid Ross and Stephens did not seek the views of ZACF, the subject of critical reportage prior to publication.

And a further effect is that key African and black anarchist voices have been silenced in Reid Ross and Stephens’ account, and with that ZACF has been side-lined in the story of ZACF, and disempowered.

And in doing so, they create a deeply misleading picture of ZACF that, bluntly, damages the credibility and hampers the political work of the ZACF – one of the most active anarchist and syndicalist formations, not just in southern Africa but on our continent as a whole.

The approach is condescending and patronising. The ZACF is a key topic of the conversation, but not included in the conversation. The main anarchist and syndicalist group in South Africa focused completely on work amongst the black working class, active for well over a decade, a group that has a long record of work and of arrests becomes an object.

Was this truly necessary?

*4B. A Selective Use of Evidence and Leading the Witness

The failure to use other extensive ZACF resources, or to contact ZACF, and the reliance on the opinions of people outside the ZACF to tell the story of the ZACF, also reinforces the impression that Reid Ross and Stephens only wanted to hear and publish information that fitted their claims. For example, as shown in Section 3D, none of comrade Nyalungu’s views about ZACF were ever quoted in any of the eight articles e.g. his statements that ZACF “honestly challenged … the status quo,” that there was “nothing like ‘white supremacist’ tendency” in ZACF etc. Instead, the work of the comrade was rubbished as part of a general rubbishing of ZACF.

The same impression arises from private messages that Reid Ross sent in the course of his research.
A message sent by Reid Ross to one comrade, formerly of ZACF and now organising amongst farmworkers, requested information on Schmidt (Facebook message from Reid Ross, 22 October 2015).

But Reid Ross added, significantly:

“From several interviews I’ve conducted of people on the South African left, as well as the SA anarchist movement, it seems as though people kind of knew about a lot of controversial opinions held not only by Schmidt, but also by members of the ZACF.”

Since this exact same message described Schmidt as a “white supremacist” with “racist ideas,” (it does not cite any other “controversial opinions”), Reid Ross’ message effectively said that other “members of the ZACF” were “white supremacist” with “racist ideas.”

So, rather than ask the comrade whether she agreed with these claims, Reid Ross framed the interview as filling in the “final details.”

This sort of leading the witness in an interview is frowned upon in research, because it tends to give the researcher only data that confirms their pre-existing views, rather than presenting open questions.

And the framing used here also slandered ZACF in the guise of undertaking research. Unless damaging claims can be independently validated, they are slanderous: what some people think they “kind of knew” is not serious evidence for such claims and it is inappropriate to cite it without any qualifiers.

This sort of approach, not grappling with the full spectrum of evidence, and showing a confirmation bias, is deeply problematic.

It is clear, Reid Ross and Stephens presented ZACF in a negative light, not just in their final publications, but in the course of developing those publications

One of the frustrating elements of the Reid Ross and Stephens series is that no clear distinction is drawn between the direct testimonies of witnesses, or second-hand information or speculations, and that sources of data are often not clear.

In the discussion of ZACF, these are continually mixed together, despite the major and significant differences in the reliability of these types of material. What someone saw is obviously more reliable than what someone heard through a grapevine, or an opinion that has no clear factual basis.

As an example, the disparaging discussion of the BAG/ PMCP/ ZACF work in Motsoaledi and comrade Nyalungu [7] does not cite any witness or source for the claims made, yet the claims are presented as authoritative.

But a close look shows the claims could not come from direct testimony: comrade Nyalungu did not make these statements in his emails to Reid Ross; the ex-ZACF member Reid Ross and Stephens keep citing arrived in ZACF around the time the project started going into decline, towards the end of 2006 and early 2007, and was not part of it; an extensive set of checks indicate none of our other comrades and ex-comrades involved in this work made such claims to the two Americans. The claims are also completely at odds with materials at www.saasha.net. The only person actually cited is an anonymous source who made some general comments about the “white left,” [8] but not about PMCP.

So, the account of BAG/ PMCP/ ZACF Motsoaledi work by Reid Ross and Stephens is not actually based on first-hand testimony or documentary evidence, and must therefore either be second-hand (and therefore unreliable) or based on speculation.

(And, again, is it not striking that comrade Nyalungu was not actually cited as a source on the project he was so central to?)

The point is that not all sources are equal. Second-hand information is often flawed, incomplete and garbled, which is why it must be carefully cross-checked. Until verified, it must be treated with great scepticism, given the malleability of oral testimony, and well-established human propensities to exaggeration, folklore and urban legend, rumour and gossip, including regrettably malicious whispers.

Speculation without facts is useless as a source of evidence. What some people supposedly “kind of knew” (Facebook message from Reid Ross, 22 October 2015) is not fact, unless backed up with solid evidence. Otherwise the claims are second-hand, with the problems that involves, or baseless speculation. Even if all of these people’s views were completely consistent with each other, it would not prove their accuracy, or expertise, but only their agreement.

And this is why the basic weight of verbal evidence must come from key informants with direct expertise and experience on the issue being examined – and why verbal testimony must be cross-checked against other testimonies, as well as against sources like documents. Documents because the problems with witnesses and memory are well-established.

But in Reid Ross and Stephens’ account of ZACF, testimony by people with direct knowledge of the ZACF could not have been cross-checked against other testimony, since only one such source seems to have been used, and could not have been cross-checked against documents, since they get so much so wrong.

*4D. Research Problems with Excessively Using Anonymous Sources

A notable feature of the Reid Ross and Stephens’ series is that almost every single person cited is kept anonymous – although the use of anonymity has, as we shall show, some revealing inconsistencies.

This includes everyone cited on ZACF, including the one ex-ZACF member quoted.

We understand that sources are sometimes kept nameless or given fake names (pseudonyms) in journalistic and academic publications. We also understand that granting anonymity may sometimes be essential: without it, some crucial information would otherwise not be made available.
In both cases, the key consideration is to ensure that sources do not suffer harm as a result of the research, this being one of a number of standard ethical guidelines in the media and in science.

Whether anonymity should sometimes be granted is not at issue.

What is at issue are two other matters: the methodological problems that arise when using anonymous sources, and how to avoid these; and the question of when anonymity is appropriate.

The use of anonymous sources has some serious, inherent problems, and this is why anonymity is normally used only as a last resort.

It is very difficult for a reader to assess the credibility of anonymous sources, especially where (as in the Reid Ross and Stephens pieces) it is almost never stated what relation and what expertise the people cited actually have with ZACF.

It does not help to describe people vaguely as sources, interviewees, or as members, “veterans” or activists of the left or the anarchist movement. Obviously, these people are sources and interviewees, but this does not establish the status and validity of their testimony.

It is not clear whether they have first-hand information, or are repeating claims from others that they might not be able to themselves substantiate, or whether the statements presented fall into the category of rumour and speculation and whispers. It is not clear whether the articles are dealing with a set of reliable key informants, a network of friends and associates, members of a particular current, their race, social background and activist record etc.

To speak of people as part of the left does not help much. As we discuss below, the larger South African left involves millions of people, of which the “anarchist movement” is a very small part (much of which involves ZACF). South Africa has massive levels of social unrest, protest and strikes, so identifying someone as an activist is about as specific as identifying someone as a worker or a student. And none of this deals with the basic question of the credibility of the claims made, and the type of information that is being provided.

An additional problem with the extensive use of anonymity, when coupled to vague descriptions and the absence of pseudonyms, is that it becomes impossible to know how many people were interviewed, and how many were eventually, actually cited. Is it 5? 15? 50? 100?
It is impossible to say, although we can with some confidence, based on what appears in the articles and our own checks, say that it is almost certain that only one person interviewed on ZACF itself had any direct knowledge of ZACF, and then only for a relatively brief period.

Extensive anonymity lends itself to another problem: having the same source appear several times under different descriptions can easily, even if inadvertently, create the impression that several different sources are being cited when the same person appears in different roles.

For example, the ex-ZACF member cited by Reid Ross and Stephens appears in several different guises in the articles, easily misread as different people: as a “person at the meeting” in 2008 where Schmidt allegedly presented “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …,” as one of two “documentarians” who claim to have uncovered Schmidt’s online activities around 2011, as someone “disciplined” by ZACF; and as the source for the claims about ZACF debates on feminism, race and work with other groups (see [3], [5]).

This gives the impression of at least three different people being cited, including two from ZACF, when this is not the case.

*4E. Fact-Checking Controlled by the Authors

Anonymous sources are also less credible because they can make statements without consequence or due care (for example, slanders), and because they cannot be contacted by other researchers (to have the claims cross-checked).

In short, they cannot be independently verified.

This also means that use of anonymous sources makes it impossible, at this stage, for anyone to evaluate their credibility and expertise on, for instance, ZACF history and politics.
Were the persons cited in any position to actually make definitive statements about ZACF? This is all opaque in the articles. Effectively, Reid Ross and Stephens have the final word, and it is on their authority that the reliability of sources interviewed must be accepted.

The interview texts with the essential date stamps are not available. The names of the people interviewed are not provided, their ability to comment directly on the issues not explained or established. So, no-one else can check or do a peer-review of the evidence, or check how it was used and interpreted, whether contradictory data was left out and so on.

This is inappropriate, given the seriousness of the allegations made against ZACF. It makes it essential that the two journalists fact-checked claims by sources as thoroughly as possible. But since a wide range of sources relevant to the ZACF story were not used, and since the ZACF presented is so demonstrably inaccurate, it is difficult not to conclude that this responsibility was not fulfilled.
Reid Ross has recently addressed the credibility of the anonymous sources by stating that the “witnesses were cross-checked by an independent journalist with an impeccable reputation” [8].

But this raises more questions than it answers.

Very few of the sources cited are actually described as “witnesses,” so it is unclear whether this means that all cited statements and information provided in testimony were cross-checked. If the term “witnesses” refers to all people cited, then it is used in a very loose sense, and the basic problem with not distinguishing types of testimony arises again. If the term “witnesses” means only those who can provide first-hand testimony were cross-checked, then many cited statements were almost certainly not cross-checked.

It is not clear what is meant by “cross-checking.” If it means establishing a consistency between testimonies then this does not, as we have shown, suffice to show that the claims made were accurate – only that some people agreed with each other on some things. If they all agreed that the world was flat, it would not make it so, only show that they had a common outlook.

If “cross-checking” means fact-checking, then it is important to demonstrate that the journalist had expertise on ZACF and used other ZACF materials to check claims made. Since Reid Ross and Stephens had very few facts to hand about ZACF to supply, it would be up to the journalist to check witness claims against other data on ZACF

Certainly the fact-checker never contacted ZACF in this regard, and there is no explanation of how the fact-checking took place, or what, exactly, was checked.

It is not really clear in what sense the journalist was independent in any case: the journalist could not have been independent of the Reid Ross and Stephens articles, since cross-checking and fact-checking actively shape the articles. If the journalist was independent in the sense of being freelance, then the independence is irrelevant.

What really needs to be established is whether the journalist was independent of the parties and organisations that appear in the articles, that is, of the sources as well as of Schmidt and of ZACF. If that journalist had relations with any of these three categories, they were embedded in the events described, not an independent outsider. Given that the fact-checker is also left unnamed, it is not even clear whether the fact-checker was not himself or herself also a source of information used in the story.

And given that Reid Ross and Stephens’ accounts of ZACF are filled with egregious errors, ZACF expresses some scepticism about the efficacy and scope of this checking process.

*4F. Was Such Extensive Anonymity Really Required?

The extensive use of anonymity creates then many problems, which brings us back to the question of why it was used so extensively.

Anonymity is appropriate when it is the only way to access data, or when a source faces a credible threat. Reid Ross notes this, defending the extensive use of anonymity by suggesting that anonymous sources are routinely used in articles, as when high-placed officials speak on condition of anonymity [8]. Obviously such sources face negative consequences for their jobs, and sometimes legally, if exposed. Likewise, vulnerable groups in South Africa, such as outsourced workers, are normally granted anonymity in interviews to shield them from retaliation by capitalists and the state. In both cases the point is to avoid harm to informants as a result of research.

Applying this logic, Reid Ross suggests that he and Stephens used anonymity to ensure sources’ “personal security” [8].

We understand the logic of the argument: if Schmidt was, as Reid Ross and Stephens claim, a radical right-wing cadre, then certainly there were serious potential dangers to people who exposed him publicly.

But this argument just does not apply to a range of cases where anonymity is used by the journalists.

Why would a statement by a “South African leftist” on “the larger irrelevance of the South African left,” including the ZACF [7], require anonymity?

Why should testimony on ZACF debates about a feminist reading group require anonymity?

Why should the fact-checker, described as “an independent journalist with an impeccable reputation” [8], require anonymity?

And if personal security was the issue, why was comrade Nyalungu – undoubtedly in a far more vulnerable social position by race and class than many of the sources cited – not granted anonymity, or ZACF warned of a potentially deadly security threat from an infiltrator? There does not seem to be much concern for the personal security of ZACF members and supporters, especially black comrades. A black ex-ZACF member was named, and his long-time area of residence identified, yet a white ex-ZACF member from Europe was kept nameless, despite not having lived in South Africa for years.

*4G. Time Constraints Do Not Explain the Mistakes

AK Press, Reid Ross and Stephens suggest that some of the weaknesses in their claims arose from time pressures.

AK Press is cited in the fifth of the Reid Ross and Stephens articles [7] as admitting that the formulation of the allegations against Schmidt in the initial AK Press statement [1] was flawed. The explanation provided is this was “as an overly-concise shorthand in a moment where time felt of the essence” [7].

Reid Ross, in a subsequent piece, also explains away errors in the articles with Stephens as “due to the time constraints and pressures of putting the piece out early” [8]. Time pressure is also used to explain why, although the “article” was supposedly “actually in the acceptance process of a radical, peer-reviewed publication with a prestigious editorial board,” it never went through peer-review or basic editorial controls but was self-published at medium.com [7], a site where anyone can sign up and publish.

But this is not convincing, at least as applied to the charges made against ZACF. As indicated earlier, depending on which AK Press timeline of events we use (the two versions do not match), AK Press heard from Reid Ross at the very latest in June 2015. If he had solid evidence to hand at that stage, it must have been collected earlier, at the very least in May. AK Press also states Stephens had spent “over a year of looking into Schmidt” by the time he contacted AK Press in 2015 [7], which means at least as far back as June 2014 [7]. And Reid Ross and Stephens state “the investigation had been underway since early 2014, more than a year before Schmidt’s former publisher had any inkling of it” [7].

That is a lot of time, more than enough time to check facts and arguments.

Flaws in Reid Ross and Stephens’s account of ZACF were not imposed by time constraints. They chose when to contact AK Press, and they could publish whenever they chose at medium.com. The deadlines were self-imposed. There is no deadline at medium.com.

*4H. The Lack of a Proper Editorial or Peer-Review Process

A proper editorial process of some sort, whether peer-review or the more standard editorial process of a newspaper or periodical, is routine in formal and reputable publications, whether popular or academic.

It exists simply as an important quality control measure, and as a means of ensuring responsible and accurate reporting, most especially when the subject of reportage faces damaging claims, as has ZACF.

Having a proper review and fact-checking process is ideally not something to be skipped to get a story out or to be avoided to “get the piece out early” [8].

It is essential to quality journalism and research, and we as ZACF believe that publication on a reputable platform would have ensured far more rigour than has been demonstrated.

Reid Ross and Stephens’ articles have all been self-published online, and then spread through social media. This means that there was no system in place – from a magazine, paper or journal – that enforced basic editorial controls, fact-checking or peer review, and adequate right-of-reply.

This section shows that at least some of the problems in Reid Ross and Stephens’ accounts of the ZACF and of the BAG/ PMCP/ ZACF project are linked to the theoretical positions that are deployed.
This section does not debate the larger political and theoretical positions of the two men, but provides, instead, an indication of how an uncritical embrace of an anti-left discourse propagated by the South African state and by ultra-nationalists, a weak understating of South Africa that shares the basic assumptions of South African settler and nationalist historiographies, and a Eurocentric approach to the analysis of South Africa, anarchism and the radical right, are central to their accounts, and to the problems with those accounts.

The fight against fascism and the radical right in general must be supported by all anarchists.

However, the ZACF is of the belief that these cannot be fought from a position based on anti-left, ultra-nationalist assumptions or a position that promotes problematic racial stereotypes.

Note that we are using the term “Eurocentric,” not as a label to discredit critics, but in the specific sense of an approach that interprets the world in terms of Western experiences, generalising these universally, with no account of the specificities and impact of other contexts. These others are ignored, or are forced into a West-centred narrative – rather than the West viewed as a province in a global story, not its centre and exemplar. The standard pre-“Black Flame” narrative of a global anarchist and syndicalist history that rests almost completely on North Atlantic cases studies and thinkers is an example of such an approach, leaving out most of anarchist and syndicalist history. The point is not to dismiss Western contributions, or set up a neat and absolute distinctions between regions – these have never existed – but to have a genuinely global view.

In several places, Reid Ross and Stephens comment on the politics of the South African left. The discussion of comrade Nyalungu, the BAG and PMCP, and of their relation to the ZACF, claims that ZACF work in Motsoaledi, Soweto, was basically a project controlled by white members and white money [7]. They not only present this as an “exhibition of what the ZACF did wrong,” but go on to cite a nameless “independent activist” and “seasoned veteran” who claimed that this followed a formula of “white dominated” organisation using a “Black comrade” and being controlled by “white folks’ funds”[7]. This is part, they suggest, of “exploiting opportunities to gain prestige,” with “members of colour” having no real say.

From there Reid Ross and Stephens lambast the South African left more generally, using as the starting point a claim by another unnamed source, a “local … South African leftist,” about “the larger irrelevance of the South African left,” including ZACF. This includes “the non-role of the ‘left’ … especially the white left” in the “mass student protests” of late 2015 [7].

ZACF has dealt thoroughly with the complete misrepresentation of the work at Motsoaledi, and of the unacceptable representation of comrade Nyalungu’s work, in an earlier section, and on the dubious research upon which this was based. We will not be repeating this here.

What is striking and does bear note is the way in which ZACF is not being criticised for being small, but for being part of a larger left, and in which that larger left is presented as white, or white-controlled, as well as irrelevant. And that this is then linked straight into a claim that these points “dialed in on a broader vulnerability across the international left” in terms of poor racial politics and a lack of influence [7].

But these larger claims – the white-dominated and “irrelevant” left, and the South African left as essentially typical of the “international left” in being weak – take us into the territory of larger theoretical framings that are profoundly problematic. These ideas are closely associated with the South African state and with ultra-nationalist currents, and rooted in arguments from the colonial era.

Let’s start with the issue of the supposedly white-dominated and “irrelevant” left.

The fact is that South Africa has a massive working class-based left, almost entirely black in composition: whites and other racial minorities participate in tiny, almost insignificant numbers. This left is historically dominated by Marxism-Leninism, including by the South African Communist Party (SACP), a space and influence contested by the much smaller “Trotskyist” and anarchist currents.

It did not suffer the same crisis of confidence in the 1990s as many similar traditions in the West, and, although the working class movements, including unions, to which it is linked have suffered severe reverses in the last two decades, they are far from defeated.

Reid Ross and Stephens keep alluding to a substantial “anarchist movement” in South Africa [8].

Regrettably this is not the case. The sad fact is that the local anarchist movement is very small. When Reid Ross and Stephens keep speaking about the South African anarchist movement, and quoting non-ZACF anarchists against ZACF, the impression might easily be created, even if inadvertently, that ZACF is a minor, even controversial, part of a much larger milieu.

This would be a mistake. ZACF is a very large part of this very small movement, with a history of continuous work in the black working class, in South Africa (and previously in Swaziland) that has few peers in the South African anarchist movement.

And rather than the South African left being marked by “irrelevance,” the largest single organisation in the “mass student protests” of 2015 was the South African Students Congress (SASCO). SASCO, identified with Marxism-Leninism, is the largest student movement in Africa and forms the core of the Progressive Youth Alliance (PYA) with the ANC Youth League and the Young Communist League (YCL) (http://www.sasco.org.za/). The two-million strong Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) split over the last two years: both COSATU and the breakaway 400,000-strong National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) identify as Marxist-Leninist workers’ movements (see http://www.cosatu.org.za/ and http://www.numsa.org.za/).

Union dissidents like expelled COSATU general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi explain South Africa (and COSATU’s) fractures on the basis of “class relationships” and “colonial capitalism,” with “socialism the only holistic and viable solution to the national, gender and class questions in South Africa and the world” (Vavi, 2015, foreword to Vishwas Satgar and Roger Southall, eds, “COSATU in Crisis,” KMMR/ FES, pp. xv-xvi).

While COSATU is allied to both the ANC and the still-significant South African Communist Party (SACP), NUMSA has started a process to form a Movement for Socialism and a United Front and is expected to participate in the launch of a new labour federation later this year. The United Front, a coalition of over 300 organisations, mainly township-based and linked to NUMSA, also aims at socialism based on working class struggle (https://unitedfrontsa.wordpress.com/declaration/) – as did the preceding APF and DLF coalitions. And key groups linked to the United Front, like the Unemployed People’s Movement (UPM), identify themselves with a black working class socialism.

The debate on the South African revolutionary left has never been over whether the national / racial liberation of blacks was paramount, but rather, how this articulates with class struggle and anti-capitalism: the dominant Marxist-Leninist tradition has, for example, argued for “national-democratic” revolution as a “stage” towards socialism, the Trotskyists for various applications of the “permanent revolution” thesis. The anarchism / syndicalism of ZACF calls for working class struggle, unity and revolution as essential means to address the legacies of national oppression, racism and colonialism (see http://zabalaza.net/2010/11/28/fighting-and-defeating-racism-zacf/).

None of this discussion is to endorse any of these groups, or to get into debates about what the “real” Marxist or socialist tradition “really” is, who is “really” a socialist, to debate whether these currents have revolutionary potential or are right, have been corrupted, have the right line on nationalism, or how class struggle anarchists should relate to large reformist as well as revolutionary but statist formations, including political parties etc.

The point is that arguments that set the left, including the anarchists, up as marginal are obviously inaccurate. And obviously these claims cannot explain the deep love that hundreds of thousands, millions, have for left ideas or the scores of black martyrs the left has produced, such as SACP general-secretary Chris Hani. Elias Motsoaledi, namesake of Motsoaledi squatter camp, for instance, was a trade unionist and SACP member sentenced to life imprisonment on Robben Island alongside Nelson Mandela.

There may or may not be a history of “white domination” in Western left movements. We cannot comment on this. But in a country like South Africa, with a small white population, mostly very conservative, there is no scope for white control of the left.

But these arguments are not just inaccurate: they are closely allied to a discourse with a long and dubious history, which paints the left as alien to blacks, and thus as white or white-controlled, and, in some versions, as run by Jews, also Indians and foreigners.

Claims that the left is white, or alien, are deeply problematic, no matter who makes them. Given the scale and power of South Africa’s overwhelmingly black left, these sorts of claims are misleading. They require the peculiar claim that, despite a century of black left activism, dating back at least to the anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists of the 1910s, the left is not “really” African or shaped by blacks.

But such claims have a long history, dating back to early 1900s claims that radicalism was introduced by East European Jews, then claims that it was sponsored by German gold, later updated to include Russian gold, CIA gold and “white money.”
Although originating in the British colonial period (Britain ruled most of southern Africa by 1900, and South Africa as a unitary state was created by a 1909 Act of the British parliament), these arguments were taken up by the NP-led apartheid government from 1948. The NP insisted that black rebellions were master-minded by white Communists (and Jews) like the SACP’s Joe Slovo, as part of a plot by the Soviet Union in the Cold War. With Slovo presented as a KGB colonel running the ANC, with Mandela and others his flunkeys, the fight to defend apartheid was then presented as a battle against “Communism.” With “communist” defined very loosely, not only was the SACP banned, but so were a wide range of radical positions and radicals, including many class-struggle anarchist texts.

Elements of the post-apartheid ANC-led government have continued such claims, despite the ANC’s formal alliance with COSATU and the SACP. In this variant, the ANC-led Tripartite Alliance is the sole custodian of revolution.

All views critical of Alliance positions, whether left or right, are lumped together as an objectively counter-revolutionary force, driven by and funded by racist whites, imperialist forces, the CIA, the “dark forces” and “enemy agents.” This line of reasoning is obvious in many public statements (e.g. Moleketi and J. Jele, 2002, “Two Strategies of the National Liberation Movement in the Struggle for the Victory of the National Democratic Revolution,” discussion document, ANC). It is also shown in leaked documents where ANC leaders claim left wing black opposition movements are run by white “big business people,” “pro DA whites and racist people” (e.g. http://abahlali.org/files/UPM.pdf), the “DA” being the Democratic Alliance, a conservative white-led opposition party.

Since Alliance politics boil down to uncritical loyalty to the ANC, critics of the ANC, including left critics, are lumped in with forces like the DA. In effect, the radical left (including anarchists active in the black working class) are presented as alien forces, a “white left” that is part of the “white right.”

The basic line is the same as the old NP’s – ordinary black people are basically content but are being misled by malevolent outsiders – and retains the old Cold War logic, except that the SACP leadership is now on the side of the angels, and the CIA, not the KGB, is the driver of regime change plots.

This rhetoric and its associated conspiracy theory has a long history of use as a means to attack black working class autonomy and dissent. In the 2000s, it led directly to deep National Intelligence Agency (NIA) penetration of the “new social movements,” with close attention paid to foreign whites. As direct results, James Kilgore, a former Symbionese Liberation Army militant living undercover in South Africa as “John Pape” was deported and sent to jail in the USA, American-born Maoist land activist Anne Eveleth was arrested and tortured and narrowly avoided deportation, efforts were made to spy on an APF media officer through girlfriends, and, recently, a Swedish-born WASP activist was deported after being blamed by ANC leaders for mass strikes on the mines. A white ZACF member has been publicly accused by local ANC leaders of “teaching our people to burn tires” and working for regime change on behalf of imperialist powers.

Let us stress here that these actions are not the core of the repressive process at work. What is involved is a larger pattern of seeking to disrupt and discredit formations like the APF and WASP, ongoing campaigns to paint the UPM and shack-dwellers’ movement Abahlali baseMjondolo as controlled by sinister whites, and the insistence by co-opted COSATU and SACP leaders, as well as their proxies in sections of the Progressive Youth Alliance and COSATU affiliates, that rebel, dissident and intransigent unions are agents of “imperialism.”

Such arguments take on something of a life of their own. Just as part of the ANC has taken over the NP’s anti-left theory, rival nationalist groups and certain strands of identity politics have used similar arguments against the ANC itself, as well as against the left more generally – including usage by a sector of the student movement.

For example, the ANC worked closely with the (illegal) SACP from the early 1950s, leading an ultra-nationalist dissident faction of “Africanists” to claim that the ANC was being controlled by whites and Indians and that the 1955 Freedom Charter was a document of “white supremacy.” This group split away in 1959 as the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), and spent much of its time presenting the SACP as anti-black. They were criticised by left-wing ANC leaders at the time as expressing an “African racialism” in place of the “broad humanism” of the ANC (and SACP) (Walter Sisulu, July-September 1959, “Congress and the Africanists,” in “Africa South”).

The core problem with all of these arguments, in all their incarnations, is not that they are factually incorrect, that they have sharp “racialist” and xenophobic edges. The core problem is that they have profoundly authoritarian nationalist implications, historically exploited by both white-based NP and black-based ANC and PAC nationalists: once it is argued that certain views are inauthentic and alien, they can be dismissed, viewed as treachery, and repressed at will.

Obviously this is completely incompatible with rational debate and an ethic of dealing with differences and frank debate in an atmosphere of solidarity, and a libertarian approach that views debate as valuable in itself. (It is also incompatible with the ethos of revolutionary humanism and radical non-racialism championed by the best of the left and the nationalists).

Ultimately these anti-left, nationalist arguments are a strange fruit grown from the tree of colonial reason. They rest, ultimately, on the profoundly racist notion that ordinary black people in South Africa are unable to make their own choices, whose role in, for example, the APF or UPM is that of hustlers or the dupes or tools of sinister conspiracies. This is the real rationale for claims that “they” must be protected, even form themselves, by a paternal state machinery.

This reasoning draws deeply on a colonial geography of reason, where thought and action are the province of white people, with ordinary black people relegated to subjects who are protected from their own limitations and from the nefarious plots of outsiders. If under colonialism, this supposed protection was to be doled out by the empire, under nationalism, it is doled out by the nationalist state in its various incarnations.

In this way, colonial reason intersects with nationalist authoritarianism, Cold War thinking and certain strands of identity politics.

No one familiar with South Africa’s history would be surprised to learn that there is deep mistrust between the races, that arguments that pose conflicts in racial terms have deep resonance, or that claims about “white control” find a ready audience. Such politics will continue until the question of ongoing national/ racial oppression is decisively answered with a radical social and economic change.

But this does not mean the sorts of arguments outlined here are correct, or that they should be promoted. Regrettably, Reid Ross and Stephens drift far into these murky waters in their analysis of the ZACF. This is shown by their analysis of the BAG/ PMCP / ZACF work in Motsoaledi, which repeats every core theme of long-standing South African anti-left discourse. It is shown when they quote and apply, with approval, an anti-left discourse that deserves to be met with due scepticism, based on a clear understanding of its lineage, implications and place in state policy – and by an appreciation of the depth and importance of the left in shaping South African struggles and movements.

*5B. The Unknown Country: Reading South Africa off the USA and Western Europe

Regrettably, Reid Ross and Stephens’ analysis of South Africa tends to read Southern developments off the very different experiences of the advanced capitalist countries of the West.

This is shown by important factual errors regarding basic features of South African politics and political economy, and an ongoing series of spurious comparisons between South Africa and the USA.

The point here is not to claim that there are not larger global patterns and histories that affect all countries, to deny some important similarities and connections between the Global North and the Global South, or to ignore the existence of overlaps, or elide massive variations in the Global South.

It is that national and racial and class questions play out in very distinctive ways in deeply divided but semi-industrial post-colonial societies like South Africa, and that South Africa has unique features as well. These specificities have to be taken seriously to avoid serious misunderstandings.

As far as we know, neither Reid Ross nor Stephens have ever visited South Africa, nor met key players in their story, such as Schmidt or Nyalungu.

Doing research at such a distance requires a great deal of care in understanding the context, in order to avoid mistakes.

Reid Ross and Stephens present Afrikaans as the imposed language of white “slave-owners,” when history shows it was developed by the underclasses of slaves and servants, Asian, African and white, in the pre-industrial Cape Colony: its first written work was the Koran in the 1830s. Wealthy “slave-owners” spoke Dutch or English, not Afrikaans. They conflate the three million-plus white “Boer” / Afrikaner ethnicity comprising around 60% of whites, with white farmers in general, who comprised a small capitalist land-owning elite of 60,000, many English, by the end of apartheid. The positions of Afrikaner nationalists are misunderstood: they do not argue for an independent “white” state, but for an independent “volkstaat” (national-state) for white Afrikaners only, not whites in general.

Reid Ross and Stephens speak of the South African Defence Force (SADF) as a “paramilitary Afrikaner Volksfront group” that joined the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging (AWB) “in 1994 to violently disrupt the vote that dissolved the segregated Bantustan of Bophuthatswana” [5].
The SADF was, in fact, the official military of the South African state, dating back to the mid-1910s as the Union Defence Force, not to 1993 when the right-wing Afrikaner nationalist Volksfront coalition was formed. (And the AWB was not a movement of “poor white extremists” as Reid Ross and Stephens suggest, but a cross-class formation controlled by white commercial farmers and marginal white petty bourgeois).

There was also never a “vote that dissolved ... Bophuthatswana.” A massive popular rising broke against homeland dictator Kgosi (chief or king) Lucas Mangope, who in 1994 still refused to legalise the ANC, COSATU, PAC and SACP. Mangope was allied to the Afrikaner Volksfront through the Concerned South Africans Group (COSAG), which linked right-wing whites to right-wing blacks in the last years of apartheid. Other homeland rulers involved in COSAG included Zulu nationalist Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, head of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and Brigadier Oupa Gqoza, military ruler of the Ciskei. Despite COSAG aid, Mangope was toppled and the homeland participated in the 1994 general elections under the auspices of the SADF.
.

This larger picture is missed, with Reid Ross and Stephens continually reducing the radical right in South Africa to the radical white right.

This might make sense for the USA or Western Europe, but, as COSAG showed, South Africa had a very different situation. This leads them to be surprised that AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche admired King Shaka Zulu [5]. But this is not so surprising given that hard-line Afrikaner nationalists and Zulu nationalists were formally allied through COSAG, and developed an (abortive) plan for the simultaneous secession of an Afrikaner “volkstaat” and reconstituted Zulu kingdom on the eve of the 1994 elections. The complexities of right-wing nationalism in South Africa also get lost in this way, with for example a collapsing together of very different, often mutually hostile, groups like the AWB and FF+. But unless this basic terrain is understood, the ANC inviting the Zulu nationalist IFP to join the 1994 Cabinet, and then the Afrikaner nationalist FF+ to join the 2009 Cabinet, cannot make much sense.

Because Reid Ross and Stephens keep reading South Africa’s complex right-wing reality off Western experiences, their discussion of the South African white right assumes a somewhat surreal character.

The white right is not, for the most part, discussed on the basis of its own views.

Not a quote is provided from any white right party or formation in South Africa.

Reid Ross and Stephens instead provide long discussions of currents like “third position” fascism and so-called national-anarchism and European and American rightists like Benoit, Dugin, Evola, Raspail and Southgate, with the figure of the skinhead in the background (see e.g. [3], [5] [6]), none of which have any traction in South Africa’s white right.

There is no reference to any serious work on or use of local expertise on the country’s history of fascism and right-wing nationalism.

Without exception, the experts on the radical right cited by Reid Ross and Stephens are Westerners, none with an expertise on the South African situation. But their analyses, grounded in the very different European and North American contexts, are assumed to provide obviously accurate guides to South Africa.

The homelands / Bantustans are completely misunderstood by Reid Ross and Stephens: they are presented as “the equivalent of ‘Indian Reservations,’” part of a pattern in their analysis of reading South Africa off the USA.

The reality is the homelands were semi-autonomous states run by African kings and chiefs working hand-in-glove with white apartheid officials, governing an indigenous majority, to provide the pools of cheap migrant labour upon which much of South African mining and industry rested. The roots of this system lay in Britain’s “indirect rule” policies, pioneered in the Indian Raj and then exported to the African colonies.

But South Africa’s capitalist revolution, starting in the 1870s, destruction of an independent peasantry, and rise of South Africa as a regional imperial power, gave South African society a qualitatively different character to most African colonies. With this, the homeland system developed differently to indirect rule elsewhere: it was not simply a means of governance, but one of the core means of providing cheap and super-exploited African labour power, the basis of the racialised cheap labour system (the “colonial wage”) that still underpins the country's political economy.

We also note that Reid Ross and Stephens’ analysis of South Africa presents the country’s history and social structure, and our people’s history, in terms of a story of competing races and nations. This is a story where class and capitalism effectively vanish, and locates their analysis, not in the radical left historiography, where capitalism, political economy and South African imperialism are central, but in the traditions of South African settler and nationalist historiography, where everything is reduced to a timeless race struggle.

*5D: A Eurocentric History of Anarchism and Syndicalism

Reid Ross and Stephens also indicate the same Western perspective when they speak of “shifts” over “some two-decades” to a more inclusive anarchist project that addresses issues like racism, colonialism and women’s oppression. The “shifts” in the “some two-decades” are explicitly presented as a break with the movement’s supposed narrow, “traditional preoccupations” with capitalism and the state [3], and are rooted in non-anarchist sources like “post-structural theory” and “leftist solidarity” movements.

And maybe this is indeed true of the USA. We do not know.

But as a bigger chronology and history of anarchism, it really only makes sense if the history of anarchism in most of the world, and most of anarchist history before the 1990s, is written off with developments in the West, probably only in some sectors of its anarchist movement, taken as the basis of a universal history.

The issue is that historic anarchism and syndicalism, worldwide, opposed imperialism, colonialism, racism, women’s and other forms of oppression, and that these struggles have been part of the movement’s history from the start in the 1860s. For example, Peruvian anarchists were working with indigenous movements a century ago, and syndicalist militants were organising women – often also indigenous – in Bolivia, while the first black trade union in South Africa was the revolutionary syndicalist Industrial Workers of Africa, on a platform of smashing national/ racial oppression and capitalism through One Big Union.

This is exactly why recent developments in the USA or the West should not be taken as the basis for a universal story of anarchism and syndicalism.

**SECTION 6: POLITICAL ISSUES IN THE AFFAIR – AND HOW A BETTER ANARCHISM IS POSSIBLE

We do not object to debate, or to criticism or self-reflection. Nor do we object to the anarchist and syndicalist movement having open and frank discussions. We do not call for a unity based on ignoring differences or on silence. We welcome these as an essential part of an effective political practice.
And in this sense we welcome discussions around race and national liberation and the drawing of lessons from important experiences, as opposed the common tendency in the anarchist and syndicalist movement of uncritically celebrating past glories, without examining past failures.

*6A: For a Constructive Debate, Against Sectarianism

At the same time, however, ZACF objects to controversies based on spurious claims (we are not implying the claims against Schmidt are necessarily spurious), labelling, sectarianism, personal attacks, and innuendo, and a lack of sensitivity to power dynamics.

By “labelling” we mean the substitution of names, often undefined but generally negative, as a way of dismissing others, without engaging the substance of their positions. This includes the use of identity-based labelling, whether on the basis of class, race or other criteria, rather than dealing with the points (e.g. dismissing arguments as “petty bourgeois,” “Western,” “black,” etc.). It includes the use of jargon-based labels (e.g. “ultra-left,” “Stalinist,” “reformist” etc.) to discredit others, regardless of whether what is argued has any demonstrable link to such approaches.

This is incompatible with rational debate and an ethic of dealing with differences and frank debate in an atmosphere of solidarity, and placing value on debate itself. (Note that a rejection of a politics of labelling should not be misread as a rejection of attention to political and moral communication and should take place across divisions, the effects of context and power relations on arguments etc.).

By “sectarianism,” we mean a political practice based on denouncing politically close currents, groups and people as enemies, rather than dealing with differences and frank debate in an atmosphere of solidarity. Sectarianism includes the use of terms like “sectarian” and “dogmatic” as labels, when sectarian or dogmatic behaviour has not actually been shown.

Sectarianism and labelling have been clearly on display in numerous, venomous online postings that have used the Schmidt affair to attack ZACF, “Black Flame,” Anarkismo, Lucien van der Walt and the political traditions and approach with which we are aligned.

The issue is not one of closing down debate, or effacing difference in the hope of a vague synthesis of currents, but of productive and rational debate – with the debate itself central to determining what forms of agreement and cooperation are useful. Debate and cooperation are not ends in themselves, but methods to achieve goals: it is methods and goals and analysis that need to be debated.

The aim is to use the power of civil, reasoned and evidence-based argument and logic to deepen understanding and break new ground.

*6B: The Importance of Consistent Principles: The Double Standards of Personal Security in the Schmidt Affair

Debates and analysis also needs to be informed by clear ethical values, and these need to be consistently applied.

We do not believe that such consistency has been shown so far in the Schmidt affair.

For example, Reid Ross and Stephens insist that Schmidt was an undercover fascist or racist working in structures like ZACF, so potentially dangerous that witnesses had to be kept anonymous in their articles.

But if so, then the first and most important priority was to alert ZACF to the danger, allowing it to act to ensure the security of ZACF comrades – black comrades above all. If the allegations were true, then ZACF security was compromised, and there was a very real possibility of serious and dangerous backlash by Schmidt or associates. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, radical white rightists in South Africa have a long history of violence and murder.

But such concern for security and the priority of African and black security in this situation was never shown. Not only did Reid Ross and Stephens fail to contact ZACF during their research, but they failed to warn ZACF of an infiltration of which they, themselves, were completely convinced existed. ZACF first heard of the “infiltrator” charges against Schmidt through the AK Press statement, and the Reid Ross and Stephens pieces that followed.

And no account was taken of the often violently intolerant contexts in which ZACF operates, and the way in which their own claims – untrue, but nonetheless printed and widely circulated – place our comrades at risk, and hamper our work.

Although the claims are completely baseless, they provide ready ammunition that our political enemies and the state can and do use against ZACF comrades. In positing a connection between ZACF and the white far right, ZACF comrades, especially black working class comrades, could face not just very real threats of violence, but problems in daily political work.

But ZACF was not contacted in advance, even to allow it to prepare for political fall-out.

ZACF does not operate in a world where the worst that can happen is a nasty comment on social media. Political intolerance, often violent, is a well-established feature of South African life, and it is easy to see how Reid Ross and Stephens’ allegation against ZACF provide fuel to enemies’ fires. Not a large organisation, the ZACF works under difficult circumstances. Arrests of its members in South Africa and Swaziland in the past are on record and instances of intimidation have affected its work repeatedly.

It was not just essential to contact ZACF to get facts correct, and to allow a right-of-reply, but also to consider the deep damage done to ZACF – and, with ZACF the main anarchist formation active in black working class circles in South Africa, to African anarchism more generally.

A story matters, but an attitude of publish-and-be-damned is not a suitable one for a revolutionary movement.

And even worse, according to the 25 September 2015 AK Press statement, the company was alerted months earlier, when “rumours” about Schmidt were confirmed when Reid Ross “provided us with actual evidence” [1]. Reid Ross and Stephens’ fifth article quotes a manager at AK Press stating they got the “bad news” from Reid Ross in June 2015, followed shortly by Stephens [7].

What this allowed, the manager continued, was for AK Press to do a “public cutting of ties” with Schmidt even before the articles were published [7], thus safeguarding its brand and reputation.

In other words, AK Press’ public relations were effectively taken more seriously than ZACF public relations and, even more seriously, the security of actual ZACF comrades.

And finally, the simple fact of the matter is that publishing images of leaked material from our e-mail lists does compromise our security.

*6C: The AK Press Connection: Also Guilty

In spite of the denial that AK Press “commissioned” Reid Ross and Stephens in part five [7], the AK Press statement is crystal-clear, regarding Reid Ross, that it “helped him investigate further,” placed him in touch with Stephens, and as a result “received and compiled what we consider to be incontrovertible evidence” [1]. In justifying its cutting of ties with Schmidt AK Press made it clear that Reid Ross’ then-forthcoming article “presents all the details in a more comprehensive manner” [1].

With Reid Ross contracted to publish a book through AK Press in 2016 (this book is advertised at the end of every chapter), it is unlikely he would produce a story that would cause reputational damage to his publisher, by contradicting the public AK Press statement that denounced Schmidt.

And no claim of distance between AK Press, and Reid Ross and Stephens, can be taken seriously when it is noted that every single one of the Reid Ross and Stephens’ chapters was reposted on the main AK Press Facebook newsfeed. This gave it mass exposure and endorsement: medium.com, where the articles first appear, is an obscure self-publishing platform but AK Press has a massive social media presence as a major node in radical networks. And both AK Press and Reid Ross have assiduously trawled the Comments on the posts, defending the line.

By contrast, the statement on the affair by Anarkismo, which certainly represents far more people and countries than the tiny and disproportionally powerful “AK Press collective,” was never carried, nor even acknowledged.
Anarkismo’s efforts to democratise the AK Press space – by asking that AK Press take responsibility for inflaming the Schmidt affair, for the way it handled matters, to qualify its claims, and to carry both sides of the story (www.anarkismo.net/article/28576) – were completely ignored.

*6D: The North/ South Dynamics of the Schmidt Affair

We have indicated in the previous section that Reid Ross and Stephens’ research on ZACF and on South Africa has not engaged in a careful analysis of the history and politics of the left, nationalism and fascism in post-colonial settings like ours. Rather there is a recurrent Eurocentrism expressed in a failure to get facts correct, to understand the politics and political economy of our country and how this shapes the national/ racial question, a continual tendency to read local realities off of USA and European examples, and a tendency to generalise off Western, especially US, experiences to make sweeping claims about the state of the left and the history and politics of anarchism.

But there is another element of this North/ South dynamic at play in the whole Schmidt affair.

Precisely because countries like the USA dominate media, knowledge production and publication globally, even obscure writers in the Global North have a louder voice than almost any in the Global South. This, too, plays out in this saga.

Simply put, Reid Ross and Stephens and AK Press can propagate their views on a global scale, as compared to the ZACF or its militants and ex-militants like comrade Nyalungu.

AK Press, run by a tiny “collective,” can disdain to hear the voices of Anarkismo, and it can unilaterally cancel books like “Black Flame,” which – whatever their problems with Schmidt – was primarily written by another person, without even bothering to send that person an email raising the issues, or considering a way forward.

Every article by Reid Ross and Stephens, no matter how problematic, has been pumped out through AK Press’ media apparatus.

AK Press, Reid Ross and Stephens can really say what they like about ZACF and black working class activists like comrade Nyalungu without any real possibility of our having access to any formal dispute resolution mechanism, any sort of “ombudsman” / formal complaints investigation process or legal redress, given their location behind the walls of the dollar and the American legal system.

All we can really do is appeal to their sense of right with a clear and firmly worded statement like this one.

There are, in other words, serious North/ South power imbalances at play, and this whole affair exposes them. While our detractors can spend many days patrolling social media sites to defend and amplify their positions, we, ourselves, exist in a world where most ZACF members and supporters do not even have direct access to basic computer facilities and the internet, some not even having regular access to running water and electricity.

And this, too, reinforces the silencing of our views, and our exclusion from the conversation, in which we are a central topic. And to make matters worse, there is the unedifying spectacle of the African ZACF with its long history of militant work, and sacrifice, being given advice in the Reid Ross and Stephens articles on the need to take race and “the deleterious effects of institutionalized power disparities” seriously [5].

It’s not an issue of whether Americans can or should write as they wish. It is that ZACF and others who are actually directly affected by the Schmidt affair are marginalised in these discussions.

*6E. Conclusion: A Better Anarchism is Possible

As revolutionaries committed to a radically democratic, self-managed, and egalitarian future, and a universal human community based upon justice and freedom, we need to act now in ways that prefigure the future that we want.

We think, then, that some basic actions might be in order to help make the anarchist and syndicalist movement more like the prefigurative, solidaristic and internationalist movement we would like to see change the world.

There are some concrete proposals that we would like to make, as follows:

1. The promotion of a culture of rational debate and fair process, not a punitive culture of labelling, sectarianism, personal attacks, and innuendo, and a lack of sensitivity to power dynamics;

2. Acceptance of an ethical code that is consistent with our values, and that takes into account issues like North/ South power dynamics. This includes a code of conduct for anarchist or anarchist-identified writers and journalists;

3. Being responsible when making criticisms, by getting the facts right, operating in a constructive and substantiated manner, and allowing right-of-reply;

4. The need to develop measures to keep small collectives controlling massive resources – including publishers like AK Press – accountable to the movements they claim to serve, as opposed to such groups being able to unilaterally impose sanctions on others;

5. Building a more inclusive anarchist press: not a mechanical representation of groups, nor a movement dominated by the doctrines and graduates of US universities, nor one centred on the elites of the Global South, but one in which voices from working class and peasant movements, from ghettoes, from townships, from the Global South, are heard more than sub-cultural groups and sectarian posturing.

The anarchist and syndicalist movement needs to take a long, hard look at itself. The sectarianism, labelling and venom that this affair has revealed, the paranoia about infiltration, the willingness to believe the worst, the power relations that allow two American journalists to act with impunity with a powerful media campaign against a substantial African revolutionary organisation with real roots in a black working class, needs to change.

The real criteria for a successful mass anarchism and syndicalism are not whether some anarchists attend some protests, not whether anarchists build a large but isolated anarchist ghetto, not whether some protests used democratic methods of decision-making, not how heated our rhetoric can become, or how bitter our sectarianism on bulletin boards. Even promoting democratic decision-making in larger movements is not a satisfactory criterion for success: democracy is not unique to anarchists, and unless people are won over to anarchist ideas, democratic processes will simply lead to the democratic selection of non-anarchists positions.

The real criteria, the only ones that really matter in evaluating anarchist success or failure, are simply these: does anarchism secure a mass base in the popular classes, in the oppressed nationalities and marginalised groups, in the labour movements, in the big struggles of our time – a sustained presence that builds the basis for a revolutionary popular or counter power, against the system. This requires strategy, focus, and sacrifice – based on careful discussions.

Because unless anarchism finds its road to the masses, it is a failure, impotent, and pointless.
It may entertain and entrance. It may provide a home for the anarchists.

But it will never change the world. It can only change the world when it goes to the masses, shares their hopes and struggles, and merges with them.

RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new comment. hide help

* Most of the statement is besides-the-point, and is a history and outline of the ZACF.

* A structure for these responses is beginning to emerge:

1. here's who I am/who we are and our anarchist credentials
2. condemnation of racist/fascist statements by Schmidt's as "inexcusable", "regardless of rationale", "in their own right", while being careful not to attribute them to the "real" Schmidt
3. condemnation of Schmidt only "if proven" to be racist/fascist/national anarchist by a commission
4. shooting the messengers while saying you're not shooting the messengers, "not taking sides" while taking sides against ARR/JS
5. statement that Schmidt was properly questioned/investigated in 2011
6. condemnation of Internet commentators
7. and on and on and on and on...............

* Unique to this statement is the long diatribe(s) about ARR/JS as American Eurocentrists and perhaps even racist. AK is called out on the carpet with similar accusations.

* It is far too long, and strays into sidetracking territory about "settler and nationalist historiographies". We know the draft was leaked in late December as draft #18(!), so we can only assume this version is revision #20+ and it's now obvious why it took so long. It seems the long wait is not primarily an issue of translation or democratic input, but of thesis-length text.

* The so-called questioning/investigation of Schmidt in 2011 is again used as an excuse to claim appropriate steps were taken 4-5 years ago. This is dubious on (at least) three counts:

1. The evidence that ZACF, Lucien, and likely others had in 2011 is the same evidence most strongly denounced in these statements, that of the Strandwolf/Black Battlefront blog. It sat active for half a decade, and was brushed off by Schmidt's closest comrades until brought to prominence first by ARR/JS's articles, and then by a few Internet commentators spreading the full text online (most notably, me).

2. All of the corroborating evidence was also online, a quick Google search away as well as obvious on Facebook, and in some cases linking to the Strandwolf/Black Battlefront blog.

3. If not obvious from appearance (e.g. tattoos, Nazi caps and pins), a fuller picture of Schmidt's ideology should have emerged not only from the controversy surrounding the 2008 memo, but from other political statements, like this gem from a 2010 interview with both LvdW and MS:
Quote:

MS: It is possible that, should more working class and underclass whites get involved in anarchism, they may feel the need to develop race-specific organisations to deal with their specific minority circumstances. I foresee that any such move would be condemned and misunderstood both here and abroad, because of the projection of Western social norms onto Africa’s very different conditions, and because of the false assumption that white South Africans are automatically wealthy (sometimes a version of the “white privilege” argument which, as indicated, the ZACF rejects) – but I don’t expect any such development is imminent. It is also not a tactical or strategic line that the ZACF would endorse.http://www.alpineanarchist.org/r_i_africa_english.html

This ZACF statement is an attempt to discredit the popular opinion that emerged about Schmidt online, absolve ZACF responsibility for the Schmidt Affair and place it squarely on Ross-Stephens, entertain the possibility that Michael Schmidt is not clearly a white supremacist, defend Lucien van der Walt (who lied to everyone by secretly defending Schmidt's racism), and to muddy the waters over simple matters.

This stands despite the fact that the ZACF does have legitimate points and concerns about some aspects of the Ross-Stephens expose, which should be amicably addressed.

The references are all out there and very well known by those familiar with this affair, but I will add these primary sources to the links posted by ZACF above:

THE ANARCHIST RABBLE SPEAK
• First and foremost, the ZACF claims the anarchist forums host a "venomous and polarised tone" and that "A vocal anti-Schmidt current dominates many forums by relying, not on substantive debate, but on innuendos and on labelling." The exact opposite is the case. The “anti-Schmidt current” repeatedly posted facts about the 2008 memo, Schmidt's defense of it, his neo-Nazi Lebensrune tattoo, his Sychthian tattoos, his World Cup post, his Afrikaner nationalist sentiments in publications, his 2 unpublished allegedly racist Anarkismo articles, his knife photo on Facebook, his skinhead comments, his call to “necklace” Zuma, his open lies in his defense (about the neo-Nazi tattoo, the memo, etc).

• This is “not substantive”? As data was released the conversation quickly turned into rational debate based on facts, which not surprisingly found Schmidt racist (what ZACF calls “anti-Schmidt”). Public peer review in anarchist forums resolved to find Schmidt guilty by discussing the facts through rational analysis.

• It is the online critics that have advanced this conversation into one about the facts.

• If what ZACF is saying were true, they should be able cite a representative example. But they don't. For an example, see the debate in Libcom since December, when Lucien joined the conversation. Try to find something not rooted in rational dialogue and factual substance for the next three months of posts.

• This is an attack and insult to all of us. ZACF must see in the online masses a stupid and emotional “rabble”.

• I suggest anyone read these conversations for themselves here under Anarkismo articles and at Libcom. Very reasoned debate in the forums and at the bottom of articles, engaging the facts directly:

• This comment is enough to discredit the ZACF and their elitist stance against the “venomous” rabble (anarchist forum commentators) and desire to instead have a "commission" of smart guys to judge. There is no longer any defense or support for the white supremacist Michael Schmidt and his incitement to violence against blacks. We do not need a commission. The evidence speaks for itself.

ZACF: SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY, ABSOLVING THEMSELVES
• ZACF is trying to shovel off responsibility to Ross-Stephens for an Affair they failed to responsibly handle themselves. As they admit, members of the ZACF gave Schmidt a free pass despite knowing about the Schmidt's racist Stormfront profile since 2011. ZACF doesn't make much of the fact that the online “persona” was a Stormfront persona and that his postings were extreme and violent. At least some members were therefore privy to the racist posts and the violence he advocated against blacks.

• An alleged "fake persona" cannot absolve Schmidt for what he posted at Stormfront. Schmidt's rationalization of "undercover journalism" was not remotely defensible then or now. The knowledgeable members of the ZACF were therefore responsible for burying this and putting black people's lives at risk (especially his incitements to hatred and violence in his World Cup and Zuma assassination posts).

• The ZACF position that they did not have the time or made a mistake in 2011 falls flat when considering that they could no longer claim ignorance with their initial statement in response to AK Press in 2015, at which point they could have simply consulted the Stormfront profile and ended their neutrality. ZACF thinks the Stormfront account is potentially excusable, despite its combination with the racist 2008 memo.

• That foreigners, not South Africans, were the first publicly push the Schmidt issue reflects the failure of the informed ZACF members beginning in 2011.

• Ross and Stephens did some wrong here. But if there is racism and responsibility to be ascribed, it is for wrong conduct in this affair it is primarily with the informed ZACF members plus anyone outside comrades given the memo and informed of the Stormfront account.

• Playing the national identity card against those who finally outed Schmidt while absolving their own responsibility for burying the evidence is wretched. There is not a single statement of appreciation to Ross and Stephens for their contribution on this matter which is quite serious. This demonstrates that there is no sincere comradely sentiment to Ross and Stephens. Yet there is no reason to think the opposite for Ross and Stephens.

• ZACF claims it has no "commensurate power" to media publication, but the South African media would have gladly taken this story. Instead they have disdain for public awareness of Schmidt's indefensible racism.

• ZACF says publishing would be “impractical”, yet here we are discussing the issue because someone finally published it.

• ZACF says they did not have the energies to report the issue, but they could have outsourced the issue by handing the primary source data over to quality journalists or other anarchist organizations. Instead they kept it secret, protecting Michael Schmidt from scrutiny.

• No major investigation was needed because Schmidt's racism is indefensible, something ZACF doesn't believe. It doesn't take an “expert” to evaluate “undercover jouralism” when the “journalist” is inciting violence against blacks to violent white supremacists.

• The Schmidt Affair exploded in grassroots anarchist forums, not in the media as ZACF alleges (no New York Times, no ZNet, no left publications). It exploded because Michael Schmidt is a white supremacist. It has nothing to do with American press powers. This ZACF allegation expresses disdain for international grassroots anarchists in the English-speaking world who took the issue up once discovering what members of the ZACF failed to disclose upon discovery in 2011.

• The ZACF is playing the national identity card because it is the strongest way to shut up their critics within a leftist audience ("how dare American journalists criticize South African anarchsits! Racists!").

BURYING THE FACTS
• Flooding the argument with words to muddy the waters is the sole defense of Schmidt and his supporters. 35,000 words is an unnecessary feat of obscurity.

• It doesn't take a "commission" to find guilt in the racist actions of Michael Schmidt and the deceptive manipulation and apologies for racism by his comrade and co-author Lucien van der Walt.

• For Michael Schmidt this includes his white supremacist memo (2008), his racist defense of it (2015), his incitement to hatred and violence against black people on forums like Stormfront to other violent white supremacist murderers, a neo-Nazi tattoo (and lying about that Nazi tattoo), and more. Anarchist Affinity banned Michael Schmidt permanently in a short statement. No complexity needed. Schmidt's guilt also includes a present 2015 response not mentioned by ZACF where he called his 2008 racist memo “asking difficult questions” that were “politically incorrect”. The story of Schmidt is crystal clear. See comments for documentation listed in post below.

• For Lucien van der Walt this includes lying to everybody in the forums by attempting to manipulate the debate behind a secret identity "RedBlackWritings" and defend some of the worst racism of Schmidt, and then going silent after someone outed him by name. It includes a "Personal Statement" in which he suggests parity of wrong-doing between Schmidt and his ousters, Ross-Stephens, while omitting crucial evidence against Schmidt that no anti-racist person would ever contemplate.

DEPLORABLE ETHICS, HYPOCRISY, AND DISHONESTY
• ZACF still find the possibility of innocence in Schmidt despite the mountains of evidence against him. This is an apology for racism.

• ZACF absolves themselves from responsibility in the affair. They admit they knew about much of the evidence against Schmidt starting in 2011 yet accepted his rationalization. The evidence included his Stormfront account. It appears that particular ZACF members believe repeated incitement to hatred and violence against blacks to a violent white supremacist community is acceptable if for "journalism" purposes. This is an apology for racism.

• ZACF leaves out: Precisely what information was known in 2011? Who knew it? How many members? The entire membership? In what detail each person know or pursue it?

• ZACF wants to absolve themselves from the contents of an earlier leaked draft. Of course we cannot absolve “bad” organizations such as governments and corporations from leaked documents, but we must absolve ZACF.

• ZACF will not correspond with any unnamed parties even if they present reasonable correspondence. But we must correspond with the ZACF whose members are unnamed. This is akin to saying only ZACF has just cause for anonymity.

LUCIEN VAN DER WALT
• ZACF state they are concerned with how Ross-Stephens characterize the ZACF, but then go to length to defend “the Revolutionary Politics of Black Flame” as “FACT”. Black Flame has nothing to do with the ZACF (as Lucien was not a member when it was published) nor how Ross-Stephens characterized the ZACF in their Schmidt expose.

• They also criticize AK Press for banning Black Flame, a book co-authored with a white supremacist, which again has nothing to do with how Ross-Stephens characterize the ZACF in their writings.

• The arguments listed in support of the ideas in Black Flame are completely irrelevant, yet they were included.

• It is highly doubtful that Lucien was absent from this drafting especially considering this defense of Black Flame. The style and content of the argument is the same as Lucien's.

• ZACF does comment on Black Flame, but does not comment on Lucien's attempt to lie and defend Schmidt in the online anarchist forums (to critics who relied on facts and rational analysis).

THE SO-CALLED “COMMISSION”
• To repeat, no commission is needed because the evidence is simple. Michael Schmidt is a documented white supremacist who incited hatred and violence against blacks. This reflects the moral failing of the ZACF.

• The ZACF call for a commission is an apology for racism and an expression of contempt for public and non-anarchist opinion.

• The ZACF is not in favor public oversight. They reject use of the South African press and the general public. We are only having this conversation now because of publication for the public. We can imagine what most black South Africans would think about Schmidt.

• The ZACF rejects "trial by media" (what they allege has happened thus far). This expresses disdain for the general public which has the right to be informed. Their elitist attitude is evident in their call for a "commission" to evaluate Schmidt among the so-called correct-thinking anarchists.

• ZACF rejects that anything can “usefully” be “addressed through online debates and storms that invariably flow.” Yet Lucien van der Walt was compelled to apologize for his secret defense of Schmidt in those online debates. His statement included a formal recognition that those online conversations forced him to reconsider his stance and included specific points raised time and again by those commentators, who kept almost exclusively to the facts and analysis over the past 2-3 months (once again, the opposite of what the ZACF alleges).

• ZACF seems to believe in the supremacy of self-described anarchists. Their commission proposal doesn't include black-POC South African professors, journalists, Black Student Movement activists, or other South African activists. It doesn't call for continual publication for public awareness and input. Despite their primary concern for “the black working class”, they do not list the “black working class”. They only mention an “anarchist and syndicalist” commission, “initiated” by a friendly organization, Anarkismo, to be determined by some unnamed process.

• This is a call for a biased commission. Anarkismo, an organization that has the same precise ideological affinity as the ZACF, Schmidt, and Van der Walt, an organization that was co-founded by the guilty party who was also a delegate to Anarkismo for years (Schmidt) and heavily features his co-author (Van der Walt), should “initiate” the commission. At present, Anarkismo is holding onto two Schmidt articles they deemed potentially unethical and racist, “Neither Fish nor Fowl” (about South Africa) and “The European Menace” (about Muslims). Anarkismo has not leaked these, despite their critical importance to public opinion. Anarkismo is not impartial.

• Thus the ZACF condemn the institution of journalism in a democratic society. They do not trust non-anarchists or the general public, including the anarchists posting in the anarchist forums.

• To add to all this, ZACF and Anarkismo members have repeatedly claimed that drafting a statement, translating it, discussing it, and then editing is a long and tedious process; the assumption is that the democratic process takes time. This is the primary excuse given for long publishing delays. However, it is worth noting that this extremely long response by ZACF, circulated on Feb 18/19, includes references to an article ***just published on Feb 16 by Alexander Reid Ross***. How can that be?

This response verges on hilarious. Could ZACF really be this clueless, or is this posted by someone else as satire?

If it proves to be the ZACF’s actual statement—even more pious and intentionally missing the point than their earlier leaked draft—then they have put the final nail in the coffin of the Anarkismo network. The earlier statements by Wayne Price and Lucien Van Der Walt did a pretty good job of that, in terms of absolute cluelessness. But the ZACF have now moved things past political irrelevance and into dangerous political complicity.

They harbored a white nationalist, they continue to protect him by directing attention everywhere except where it needs to be focused. As a class-struggle anarchist, when all this started, I’d given these people the benefit of the doubt. I figured they’d just been misled by Schmidt. Now I have my doubts about where their allegiances lie. How could anyone who has truly read and understood the evidence arrayed against Schmidt produce a document like this unless a) they are more concerned with how a former member’s neo-fascism reflects on them, or b) some number of them share Schmidt’s politics?

I really hope the second possibility is untrue. But, really, how could so much work be put into creating such a perverse and misleading document if it wasn’t intentionally designed to help get Schmidt off the hook?

Given the statements that have so far recommended creating a “commission” to “look into” the Schmidt affair, that proposal is completely laughable. Van Der Walt, Price, ZACF, and Anarkismo have proven their inability to rise above sectarian concerns. They have put political self-preservation above the political ideals that make anarchism the vibrant movement it needs to be. Their public positions have done class-struggle anarchism more harm than Schmidt ever could have.

Is there any member of the Anarkismo network, an individual or a group, who has the courage to stand up to the sort of ridiculous bullshit that has been on display? The rest of us are waiting...but I'm not holding my breath.

A member of an Anarkismo organization posted a link to this article on Face Book. Someone sent me Schmidt's response (under one of his pseudonyms):

Feyd Saif'ulisaan: Well that's pretty exhaustive. In sum they'll stand by the decisions of the multipartisan commission, which I suspect will be formed of Anarkismo, IWA, IFA and IWW comrades, all those who organised St Imier 2012.

So it seems that Schmidt remains close enough Anarkismo members and to their process to have some idea what is happening with this so-called "commission." Sounds very objective.

l would like to make a correction to what Schmidt is claiming about the commission and explain the federalist principles which it seems he does not understand.

The lWA is a federation and when people write about things the lWA do or support, this should be the result of a decision by the Sections, on the federal level, to do or support something.

This seems like a very basic idea that every anarchist should understand - but they don't, and that speaks volumes for how things seems to be working in anarchist communities. But we are not a loose community, only a formal organization.

Therefore, it is incorrect to imply that the lWA organized St. lmier because the idea was generated by other people and the lWA was not invited at the inception to co-organize it. lt was invited to participate. There were people in the lWA who were among the organizers l suppose, because there are people who are members of both lFA and lWA.

The lWA decided to send an official representative as a participant. But the delegated person and another (actually myself) only organized some unofficial chats, not on the scheduled program. No event on the scheduled program was organized by the lWA. There were events where members of the lWA took part as speakers, and maybe organizers. ln such a case, while these people certainly can identify themselves as members of their organization and the lWA, it is incorrect to imply, like was actually done, that the lWA was an organizer.

l understand that in the case of some comrades organizing the event, they thought that this was like a nice gesture to write the name lWA some places as a organizer, but actually it was usurping the rights of the membership to decide whether lWA is a co-organizer.

Also, we have to keep in mind that there is actually a very bad habit, which l have seen very often, of participants in things sort of signing organizations or using their name.

On this portal, they ask you to write the name of your organization, to identify people, but one cannot assume that because of this the words represent the viewpoints of organizations.

So, about the commission - the lWA was not asked to join any commission. lf it is asked, the procedure will look like this: the Secretary will put the question to all the Sections and set a vote. Since some organizations have thousands of people, the fairest way to vote on anything is to give three months - unless it is an urgent matter. lf the majority of Sections agree to this, then we would have to set the procedure for participating - probably a delegate or delegates and have a procedure for monitoring this work and agreeing on the position.

As one can see, in order for the lWA to do this correctly, we would have to invest a lot of time.

People like the Secretariat cannot decide this, only the rank and file members. As a member, l would vote in my union, all the unions of our Section have a vote. ln my local union, although l personally have been quite interested and outspoken about the issue, l would vote AGAlNST participation in such a commission. Why? Because l think this is something that supporters of Schmidt feel they have to do to give him a "fair process". But he is not our member. Why should something like that take up the time of thousands of people? We have better things to do. lf our membership wants to comment on the case, they have every right. They can do so, signing their own name.

lf any member Sections of the lWA, or the lWA as a whole wants to make a public statement, they can also do that. A statement of a member Section or the lWA as a whole for me personally would be more useful, if any public opinion is to be made, than working on a commission. At least then you would hear the true opinion of these organizations, and that the opinion watered down by being in a joint commission with people who have historically had more affinity for national issues than we have.

Also, if any individual member of an lWA Section is asked to join, or course she or he may do so. What is not proper though would be to then say that the lWA or lWA comrades participated. The reason why the second is problematic is that a non-delegated person is not accountable to the federation or representative.

l will send a letter to the Anarkismo network explaining why this must not be done and hoping they can understand it. But, you know ... things are strange. You have "experts" on anarchism like this Schmidt guy who writes nonsense about us a lot and feels quite free to throw around the organization's name, BEFORE we were asked and before anybody in the organization has talked about it.

l of course cannot say anything about what the lWA would say about this if asked ... l only know my own opinion. l just object to these practices of Schmidt. The sort of show how people are able to usurp organizational identity for political means.

Alex, it is not a "witch hunt" to take a stance against a decades-long repeated incitement to hatred and violence against blacks-POC-Muslims to other white supremacists (especially on the white supremacist forum Stormfront which features a multitude of members documented to commit racially motivated murders). The content has been amply documented, presented and engaged, provided in the links above. The evidence speaks for itself.

Anarchist Affinity provided a proper response in their "Motion regarding Schmidt" in October. This includes the removal of Schmidt content published by Anarchist Affinity and a permanent ban on Schmidt from their organization.

Michael Schmidt is an author we have read, hosted in public events, and published in our magazine. The documents and information published by Ross and Stephens demonstrate that Schmidt has argued for and advanced deeply racist and white supremacist politics since at least 2006.

The explanations offered by Schmidt have been seriously unconvincing. The argument advanced by Schmidt that his racism on Stormfront and elsewhere was part of an undercover investigation (undertaken for eight years without result) stretches credulity. Even were this explanation accepted, the internal correspondence by Schmidt, that Ross and Stephens have published, demonstrates deeply unacceptable racism.

This is the proper stance for those firmly committed to anti-racism.

AK Press has every moral right to terminate publication of Black Flame because it requires them to support a living white supremacist (different from Bakunin etc). Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt can take the manuscript to another publisher and release the book online for free. Lucien knew essentials of this content as of 2011 and did nothing to inform AK Press. Instead he kept it secret from them.

Lucien van der Walt was outed for lying in this affair starting in late November 2015 when he secretly defended some of Schmidt's worst racism as "RedBlackWritings" in these forums. As with the ZACF, he had long been aware of Schmidt's extreme racism did nothing. The data was more than sufficient to provoke further inquiry and condemnation of Schmidt half a decade ago. Despite years of awareness, his reaction was to secretly defend Schmidt.

Lucien van der Walt is apologetic to racism. He finds it acceptable enough to repeatedly incite hatred and violence against blacks to an audience of violent white supremacists.

As others note above, Lucien and the ZACF harbored a white supremacist, protecting his reputation for half a decade. The data was sufficiently available in 2011, and now they want to shoot the messenger and pass on responsibility for what is primarily their own moral failing.

First, the fictional identities Michael used for his research:
Was it a sin?

Second, the true personality of Michael as revealed in long years of activity and interpersonal activity.
Third, the writing of Michael.

The claim of the opposition to Michael is that the fictional identities and some other facts represent his true personality and his activity within the anarchist movement was just subversion. This claim is in is not compatible with the known interpersonal relation of Michael - thus the whole complex structure collapse.

The third subjects are Michael writing that their merit is not related to Michael but to the facts brought by him.

You do not have to like Michael decisions about his activity as anarchist, nor any opinion or act he did, to see through the scandal of AK Press, Reid Ross and Stephens about the infiltrating agent Michael Shmidt

There is nothing to wonder about for a final assessment on Michael Schmidt. He is a white supremacist. The evidence is crystal clear. Much of this information was already available to people like Lucien van der Walt and members of the ZACF in 2011. They kept the information secret (and Lucien continued to work with Schmidt). Let's consider the facts.

Schmidt provided 3 replies plus a violent threat to AK Press in 2015, not 2 as Lucien and the ZACF said. The first was on social media, where he claimed his 7-page racist 2008 ZACF memo was "asking difficult questions" that are "politically incorrect" and called AK Press allegations "buffoonery" (http://antifascistnews.net/2015/10/14/as-expose-is-rele...deny/). It appears this was then taken down by Schmidt. The second was his "Two Swallows Don't Make A Summer" post, the thirds was his autobiographical defense. Finally, he made a violent threat to AK Press, telling them "a whipping awaits" alongside a picture of him with a table full of guns and grenades (https://medium.com/@areidross/michael-schmidt-and-the-fascist-creep-75256cca1f2).

Schmidt's 2015 autobiographical description of the memo is revisionist and racist. In the memo Schmidt states the South African anarchist scene has gone “from from being represented by white/Indian organisations in the dying days of apartheid, to a black-majority/white-minority organisation shortly after “liberation”, to an all-white organisation during the consolidation of
“democracy”” (page 1). His memo explains this as the result of the inferior “quality” of blacks, who lack “theoretical” capabilities, comprehension and growth, have authoritarian inclinations, lack “self-discipline”, “logical process” and “autonomous strategic thinking,” make “erratic, lumpen or selfish demands” on the white anarchists, that “middle-class white activists are peerless” and will dominate the anarchist liberation movement into the future (“Germanic surnames will prevail”), that the ZACF benefited from “the shedding of our black comrades,” and that the inclusion of blacks “would amount to a synthesists debasement of our ideas” (pages 1-6).

He goes on to say “we should “proudly recognise that we [in South Africa] are (currently, and presumably temporarily) a white anarchist movement” (against the backdrop of “longstanding” white domination) and “must of necessity reject the illogical notion that black-only organisations are acceptable and white-only organisations are not” (page 6). According to Schmidt, black members can be included in ZACF “in the fullness of time” but that they should not “merge” or “blend” with the white anarchists, but can be involved “as long as the task is established for them under the influence of SA white anarchists.” He concludes that throughout history, whites have created and then for decades dominated anarchist formations globally (he references Cape Town) and that the “objective conditions” are not right to “blend” with the blacks, who can “march alongside” the whites who will “show the way” to the blacks.

As posted above, in 2010, Schmidt also stated this in a public interview (to which his co-author and comrade Lucien van der Walt, also part of the interview, said nothing):

“Michael Schmidt: It is possible that, should more working class and underclass whites get involved in anarchism, they may feel the need to develop race-specific organisations to deal with their specific minority circumstances. I foresee that any such move would be condemned and misunderstood both here and abroad, because of the projection of Western social norms onto Africa’s very different conditions, and because of the false assumption that white South Africans are automatically wealthy (sometimes a version of the “white privilege” argument which, as indicated, the ZACF rejects) – but I don’t expect any such development is imminent. It is also not a tactical or strategic line that the ZACF would endorse.” http://www.alpineanarchist.org/r_i_africa_english.html

First, we should note that despite anyone's stressful life events, anti-racists do not wake up one day and craft a 7-page memo drenched in racism from start to finish. There's no excuse for what is written in the memo which is on its own despicable. This should close the debate.

Second, in 2015, Schmidt responded that he was “asking difficult questions...albeit politically incorrect” ones. These are not “difficult” or “politically incorrect” questions. They are white supremacist racist ones. Racist.

Third, in his 2015 autobiographical defense, Schmidt says he disavows the memo but he doesn't stop there. He singles out a “paragraph” with the comment about “logical process” and suggests a few “sentences” weren't worth defending. To the contrary, the very thesis of the memo is racist and the white supremacist comments about blacks were expressed throughout the entire text.

Fourth, Schmidt states he was being inclusive to blacks when he says “It was precisely the decline of the ZACF in 2008 into a white group that I objected to!” This is a lie. As quoted above, Schmidt claimed the ZACF and South African anarchist movement should not “blend” or “merge” with blacks, that “synthesizing” with blacks would “debase” their group and movement, that “shedding blacks” was beneficial to the ZACF in December 2007, and that inclusion should only take place if blacks do the “tasks whites establish for them”.

Fifth, Schmidt says what he “grappled with” in the memo was “how to build a united, broad working class movement” in South Africa. This is a lie. What he “grappled with” was what to do about the allegedly inferior blacks. Do “we” include them as inferior members to take orders from whites? Or should we “shed” them and become a whites-only anarchist organisation that won't be “debased” by “blending” with them?

Schmidt is not apologizing for racism but is actively disavowing his racism by lying about the nature of the memo, available for all to read, pretending that he was setting out to include blacks when he wrote it. We are not stupid. This is a lie to all of us.

YOU KNOW WHO GETS NEO-NAZI TATTOOS? RACISTS!
On Stormfront, Schmidt lied about his neo-Nazi Lebensrune tattoo in his defense. (See also Lucien van der Walt's rationalizations as “RedBlackWritings” at https://libcom.org/forums/general/ak-press-says-michael...ge=24). Schmidt only mentioned his tattoos once, in a single paragraph in his 2008 response where he claims he has "NO racist tattoos". In that paragraph he lists what he calls "the sum total of his ink" but leaves out the Lebensrune and even worse, says the "printer's mark" tattoo on his left shoulder "is not a runic tattoo" (the Lebensrune is a “runic” tattoo). This is like saying "my Mickey Mouse tattoo is not a swastika" when there's a swastika right next to it. This is not enough to convince Lucien van der Walt, the ZACF, Wayne Price, and his supporters, who astonishingly ignore this lie.

For links about the Lebensrune, see Nazi Symbolism on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_symbolism) and the original assortment of posts in the Schmidt data dump. For pictures of the Lebensrune on Schmidt's left shoulder, see https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-seduced-anarchists-around-the-world-chapter-2-1849e232b943#.oheirxey1.

Add to the list that Schmidt lied about his neo-Nazi white pride tattoo on his left shoulder.

Schmidt alleged that his Scythian chieftain tattoos cannot be construed as racist. Echoing this on Libcom, Lucien van der Walt, secretly posting as "RedBlackWritings", asked a forum member to "provide a single bit of evidence” showing that “Scythian chieftain tattoos (no, not vague online references to "Scythians" generally) are symbols of white pride in fascist circles." Evidence was then posted for Lucien, including the exact same Scythian chieftain tattoos posted on Stormfront in 2006 (see the response to Lucien at Libcom: https://libcom.org/forums/general/ak-press-says-michael...69702, for exact pictures of the tattoos posted by a Stormfront picture, see https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t256629-2/).

We know Scythian tattoos are not necessarily linked to racism the way a Lebensrune is, but we also know Schmidt got them while on Stormfront because his arms are pictured without them in a photo Schmidt dates to 2008 (in his biographical defense). We know that Schmidt calls his Scythian and Lebensrune tattoos "white pride" symbols on Stormfront (https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1045520-3).

SCHMIDT IS A RED-BROWN WHITE SUPREMACIST, NOT A CARICATURED ONE
Ross-Stephens characterize Schmidt a "national anarchist" that wants a decentralized anarchist-type system in a white-dominated Boerstaat. This explains the anarchist and fascist tattoos.

Schmidt apologists' version of white supremacy is that of a caricatured, monolithic straw man of a community which in reality has diversity of opinion within its ultra-racist parameters. A browse around Stormfront illustrates that its members disagree on topics from anarchism (https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t371876-3/) to the film American History X (Schmidt agrees with others that American History X is good for white supremacists to peddle their ideas, see https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t229019-63/).

SCHMIDT INCITED HATRED AND VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACKS FOR A DECADE
Schmidt's Stormfront posts began in 2006 and ended in 2014. During the 2009 South African election he created a Zuma thread, "Vote for Zuma! / Stem vir Zuma!", on Stormfront. This is what Schmidt had to say with his white supremacist buddies (https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t592473/):

Karelianblue [Michael Schmidt]: Seeing as we know Jacob Zuma will become the next SA President, we have to amend the electoral process. We will no longer vote for political parties. Instead voters will only be allowed to decide how to vote for Zuma. Put your cross where you feel it is best suited:

Houtkop: I would skip on all of them as I would have to pay for those options. How about I just leave him alone to starve the first 10 million blacks then pick an option?

martinusvanschalkwyk: I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but none of the above suits my fancy; I think along the lines of the tried and tested diesel and NPK fertiliser bomb. I'll have my Zuma in fine pieces Garcon, not chunks thank you very much!

Karelianblue [Michael Schmidt]: hmmm. i'm tempted by both options.

Necklacing is a brutal form of summary execution by torture used in South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing). It is discussed and pictured with glee by other racists on Stormfront (if you search Stormfront you will find graphic pictures of burnt black bodies happily posted by Stormfront members). Note Schmidt also says starving 10 million blacks is "tempting". This Schmidt-created Stormfront post totals 4 posts and obtained over 1,000 views among an audience full of extremists with members many times convicted of murder and hate crimes (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-rep...users).

Schmidt also incited Stormfront members to "flood" the 2010 South African World Cup with white supremacists and their symbols in a thread which discussed the possibility of murder at the World Cup (a post he apparently deleted, see it here at https://web.archive.org/web/20100817180013/http://www.s...0-16/). This thread, started by former KKK member David Duke, had over 16,000 views.

According to Schmidt supporters and apologists, a white man is entitled to incite hatred and violence against people of color an audience full of racist extremists with documented murderers, where black bodies might actually be victim or killed. For Schmidt, this is explained as a way to "keep his finger on the pulse" (Schmidt's explanation in his biography).

Couple Schmidt's racist incitement to hatred and violence against blacks to violent racists with his Strandwolf's Creed, timed just after he left ZACF

Ilan. It seems as if you have not read all the material that lead people to the conclusion that Michael Schmidt is either a fascist or a white nationalist or both, and certainly a racist. Either that or you failed to understand the material.

You speak of the “claims” of people opposed to Schmidt. We are far beyond “claims.” What people are dealing with at this point are facts and evidence. No one is “claiming” that he did anything. Journalists have presented evidence, shared writings and images and eyewitness testimony. Unless you are willing to engage with all of the material, your mere personal opinion is of little interest to anyone.

You remain stuck at the point that people were at the very beginning of this affair: wondering whether Schmidt was actually operating undercover, as he claimed, with numerous fictional identities that did not represent his true beliefs. Anyone who has read beyond the first article the journalists published knows that this is no longer a possible explanation.

As the journalists showed, there are clear parallels between what Schmidt wrote as a fascist, what he wrote as an “anarchist,” and what he wrote as a mainstream reporter. For instance, his critique of identity politics and white privilege theory on Stormfront uses an almost verbatim version of the critique in Black Flame…though I’m not sure which came first. He is sympathetic to white separatism in both his anarchist and his mainstream articles, and in interviews.

His “undercover” identities contacted anarchists in an attempt to interest them in white nationalist groups.

Schmidt’s statement that his decade of “research” into fascism, and his anti-racist beliefs, can be seen in the many mainstream articles he wrote was almost immediately shot to hell when the journalists actually followed up and read those articles. They found only one article that referred directly to the sorts of groups that Schmidt was supposedly investigating. And the majority of the articles, when they mention race politics, focused on the alleged “reverse racism” of blacks against whites, and the supposed genocidal practices of blacks, not whites, and on how white paramilitaries were being misunderstood by the media, etc. In other words, he was caught in yet another lie.

These are not “claims.” They are supported by actual evidence, screenshots of online comments, and the like. My guess is that you have not bothered to read any of these articles.The fact that your personal feelings and your friendship with Schmidt make the evidence uncomfortable to face does not justify you ignoring it in order to post completely empty and unsubstantiated opinion as if it should carry any weight whatsoever.

[I speak as person, have no mandate to do this]
just to clarify, Schmidt may think want he want. Fact is anakismo will choose which current they which to invite to join the commission (and I don't know why st-imier topic has something to do with this... about that, list of organizers should still be avaible somewhere and the net, and both IWA and IWW were'nt organizers, but some of them were participants) and will do this by formal procedure after having internaly adopt a proposal. then this proposal will be discuss internally by those currents respecting their internal procedures and the time they require to do so. the rest is fantasy.
greetings
johnny

This response is characteristic of an organization that, like Anarkismo, was founded by Michael Schmidt: They are more concerned with defending themselves than with addressing the fact that they’ve been working alongside a bastard for so long. And in order to keep the stink off themselves, they attack the people who are trying to expose a fascist, in the process helping the fascist himself.

This does not mean that I think that ZACF and Anarkismo (or the various older white men who have publicly tried to undermine Schmidt’s critics or explicitly defended him) are fascists. I assume they were deceived, as we all were. But I think that their priorities in the aftermath of Schmidt’s exposure are politically regressive.

The document that ZACF has produced here serves one purpose: to attack and undermine the journalists who let the world know about Michael Schmidt. ZACF uses a “reasonable” tone to hide a hatchet job. And they are willing to throw antifascism to the dogs in order to save themselves.

Their problems with Reid-Ross and Stephens could have been handled in at most a few pages. In fact, it didn’t have to be much longer than the summary they gave of the four issues that concerned them:

1) RR&S took Schmidt at his word when he claimed to have pushed for racial segregation at the ZACF’s founding congress in 2003. The ZACF could find no public evidence of this.

2) RR&S implied throughout their articles that Schmidt was able to control or influence the ZACF and push it in a direction that achieved his goals, in a general way and with some specific examples being: the ZACF’s alleged failure to address the racist resolution Schmidt presented to the organization and Schmidt/ZACF’s treatment of a black comrade in Soweto.

3) RR&S say that there were double standards within ZACF that allowed Schmidt more freedom than others, an example being that Schmidt wasn’t reprimanded for (possibly) voting for a right-wing political party, while a female member was sanctioned for wanting to join a feminist reading group.

4) RR&S say that ZACF “grew increasingly open to people of colour after Schmidt’s departure” in 2009, and has “since continued its transition from Schmidt’s era to a far-more inclusive group”

In the first place, each of those points could have been answered in a fairly concise, straightforward way that wouldn’t require 50 pages of nastiness. Second of all, many of the differences of opinion rely more on emphasis than any deep political motivation. Regarding #1, Schmidt claimed in writing that his 2008 resolution was part of a project he had been pushing since he founded ZACF. Whether or not the ZACF currently can find evidence of this in the minutes of their founding congress, it is not unreasonable that RR&S took this to be true.

Point #2, ZACF essentially admits that the organization shrank down to a small white group during Schmidt’s involvement. They just say that there were other reasons for that than Schmidt’s influence. This may be true. However, it is also reasonable for RR&S to assume that having a white nationalist hidden within one’s organization has *some* effect on its policy and development, especially when the organization evolves in a manner very similar to the plan that the white nationalist has been advocating. RR&S may have been unwise in the language they used (“purges” and the like), and they may have mistakenly believed Schmidt’s power to be greater than it was. But this also seems to be a matter of emphasis. And seems to carry over into the more specific examples.

Point #3, the ZACF seem to agree with RR&S that it should have worked harder to investigate Schmidt’s voting habits. And they say that the female member wasn’t sanctioned for wanting to join a feminist reading group, but rather for wanting to *create* such a group and not having this okayed by the ZACF, whose rules apparently require such approval. Again, this seems like a fairly small difference in interpretation, but one that also supports RR&S’s point that the rules were applied differently to Schmidt.

Point #4, the ZACF *has* grown and *does* include more black members since Schmidt left. The ZACF claims that the reasons have to do with more than the fact that a white nationalist interested in racially segregated organizing left their fold. This is likely true, but it doesn’t have to contradict the points RR&S are making (even if they made them in a heavy-handed manner)

The actual, measurable differences here (beyond word-choice and emphasis) are pretty small. Even where we might see RR&S drawing the wrong conclusions about the nature of ZACF itself, it’s not hard to understand why they might have done so. None of it required a 50-page nuclear attack on the authors’ integrity and political motivations. Especially when RR&S’s conclusions about Schmidt seem to be spot-on and far more politically important.

What *does* seem to require the 50-page smackdown, though, is a somewhat frightening and cultish obsession with defending one’s brand, even at the cost of tearing down a pair of antifascist authors and thereby strengthening the cause of the fascist they have exposed. The articles RR&S wrote were about a possible fascist in our midst, not about the ZACF. For the ZACF to make such a huge deal out of it, given the other stakes involved is kind of crazy. It's a strange form of institutional tunnel-vision that sees themselves as of central importance, enough so to derail the discussion of Schmidt himself. Maybe that was the point if some of Schmidt's friends had a role in writing this? We already know that Wayne Price had access to early drafts. How big of a role did Lucien have? Or does even mentioning this mean that the ZACF will have to write another lengthy attack defending their integrity and insisting that their organization cannot be influenced in any way by its current or former members?

Latif (and every other nickname you use in anarkismo, since there are a couple of nicknames with exactly the same writing style), I can't take your comment seriously because you start with bullshit. Utter bullshit. Anarkismo was founded by three organisations, one from Chile, one from Italy, one from Ireland. After two years of discussing the project, others came on board. I was in the founding meeting so I know that quite well. From there on everything else you say can be put in doubt.

This is an issue that people around anarkismo do not take lightly. Many of us have been at the forefront of anti-colonial and anti-racist struggles in our respective countries of origin or residence. I may not be personally that inclined to the panel, but I accept that there has been a collective process where this solution was thought out as the most appropriate, a debate that took place with very serious discussions. One may agree or disagree. But another thing is to have to cope with the same guy posting with several different names the same tirade time and again. This seems actually obssessive. No matter how despicable are a number of Schmidt's actions and views that came to be revealed in this process (and they are), the real target of people like you is not Schmidt: it is organised, class struggle anarchism. This is actually becoming clearer by the day.

What is becoming clearer by the day is how badly certain groups are responding to this situation.

1) Schmidt says he was a "founder" of Anarkismo.net. Until now, as far as I know, no one has corrected him about this. In his writing after the RR&S articles ("Michael Schmidt: An African Anarchist Biography"), he says this more than once, including: "In 2005, in fact, I was involved in founding the multilingual international anarchist news and analysis website Anarkismo, www.anarkismo.net, and often served as the ZACF’s delegate to the Anarkismo editorial committee."

Maybe the point you are making is a more different one. Maybe you mean that he was there from the start, but that "founder" would be using the wrong word. Maybe you mean that the organisation was really founded before he became very involved. Maybe you mean that many people were involved in the creation and therefore it is wrong to focus on a single individual.

Those are all fine points. But they are also splitting hairs in order to miss what I was saying: That Schmidt was importantly involved in both Anarkismo and ZACF, maybe from the beginning as he claims, maybe from very early on. If Schmidt is completely manufacturing this, then I do apologize. Like RR&S, I may be trusting the words of a known liar too much. If he is not making it up, then why should we argue about the exact wording, or lash out by saying my ideas are "utter bullshit"? There is nothing wrong with honestly saying, yes,this guy was part of it from the start, or from the early days and he played a central role for some amount of time. No reasonable person would condemn Anarkismo for this. We are all in the same boat, equally deceived. Why, instead, do you attack the messenger, start swearing at me when I believe you understand the meaning behind my words?

2) I consider myself in the organised, class struggle anarchist tradition, and I have been since I was first an anarchist. Perhaps because of the people I am associated with, everyone I know who has decided that Schmidt is some kind of fascist or national anarchist is also from organised, class struggle tradition, many from formal organisations, and some from organisations inside the Anarkismo network.

You are making a false division. It not true that anyone condemning Schmidt must also be condemning the tradition he is a part of. It is equally not true that to criticise how certain organisations deal with this situation is to be an enemy of class struggle and formal organsations. Yet certain organistions and individuals are acting this way. They are weak or vague about Schmidt himself but spend much very intense energy attacking how the case against him has been conducted, and the people who are conducting it. They accuse Reid-Ross of being some sort of individualist tearing down the class struggle no matter how many times he says it isn't true, that he is a Wobbly, and etcetera. You assume that if I am upset with the way ZACF and some of the more public voices of the Anarkismo network have been behaving that I am a post-left nihilist.

This is how Schmidt has been acting. He labels anyone who disagrees with him a "synthesist" or worse (look at the exchange in the comments after his article about Neo-Makhnovists, where he tries to do that to a member of the IWA http://www.anarkismo.net/article/27678). He has recently called AK Press as "subcultural" and other adjectives. He says that the "AK Press smear campaign was in fact a political attack by the post-modernists against pro-organisational anarchism," as if AK hasn't published many important class struggle pro-organisational books (including his own). This is not behavior to repeat.

I value the work of Anarkismo. I know little about the daily work of the ZACF, but I have used their publications for many years. I have found your work strong as well, your journalism, your interview with Fonteneis. I consider Black Flame a crucial work of anarchist history, but I am no longer sure if I can offer it to others when, as is mentioned above, I see some of its positions on race repeated in Schmidt's fascist writings.

All of this can be true and I can still think that some individuals and organizations inside our tradition have responded badly. ZACF devoted perhaps one page to the case against Schmidt (and that was just to say that they couldn't decide and they would wait for some committee of the future). But they write about 49 pages attacking RR&S, when the their criticism could have been handled in a much shorter and more calm way.

This unbalanced attack has been very common. That is what I was complaining about, not as Schmidt would like to pretend, the entire tradition of pro-organisational anarchism. To confuse the two makes all of this much more hard to get through.

about relations between schmidt and editorial group. I'm a member of the editorial colective since the end of 2009 (when my org, OSL, joined the network), during all this time schmidt was never an editor, so no at least since I'm in he didn't have editorial access. I heard of him first when black flame came out (because there was a lot of talking about this book). in 2012 I heard of him again when st-imier's conference wanted to invite him to talk about the book but he didn't come. and since have read some stuff he published about anarchism history, but english is not my mother tongue language and, for exemple I have read black flame very partially, never finished it. most of my comrades didn't know about him since this story came out and tend to consider it as a "non-event" because it's "nobody" (I mean, it's a guy located far away from us who writes in english...).I don't really know what other non-english speanking orgs think about it, but for us it is still difficult to understand why a guy who's not even member of an org seems to have so much attention. the only think I can add, is that in my regular contacts with some french and latin@s comrades that not a topic we discuss, we tend to let it in the hands of english speaking comrades and wait for the commission to form and make its conclusions to see what this is about. as I'm in the editorial group I help what I can about this commission (I don't have the capacity to read the accusation and the defence, even if I tried a bit and at the begining I was more than unhappy about what was going on and have wrote some comments on facebook, but have long concluded it overpass my understanding...), and my org don't ask me for any feedback for now. we're just waiting for the commission, hoping it will stated something clear that could be easily translated to see what all this is about. the only thing we really stated was even if we don't know what this is about (and if the accusations are justified or not), our group though it was time to set up formal mechanisms to evaluate ehtical conducts of comardes (members or contributors) so we have a guideline for what to do when someone is accused. for now, we're happy with schmidt been suspended of his rights to publish on our plateform until we have the results of the commission to take a definitive decision.
I understand my comment may upset those who think this is a very important issue, but what would they do if all this story was in french or italian and about a guy they never heard about or only very little?
again I speak about my org, but once the commission clarify this story for us, we'll take our responsabilities and take the necessarily decisions (and if it need to be permanent exclusion in any form from our plateform then it will be)
greetings
johnny

Jose, l always sign my name, don't use sock puppet accounts and you actually know l exist and maybe know that my politics are not anti-organizational or anti-class struggle. Therefore l hope you will not start any reply to this with words like "bullshit".

"In 2005, in fact, I was involved in founding the multilingual international anarchist news and analysis website Anarkismo, www.anarkismo.net, and often served as the ZACF’s delegate to the Anarkismo editorial committee"

and

"I was a founder member and helped draft the ZACF Constitution which states that it “considers itself the heir of the anarchists and syndicalists of all colours who built the first black and Indian trade unions in SA from 1917, as well as inspired by the massive union and neighbourhood rebellions of South Africa in the 1980s.” "

You do realize that these points were used by MS to sell his anarchist biography to people. Now you are saying "bullshit". So - why didn't anybody clarify this point when MS wrote his defence?

Did you read what MS wrote?

And, Jose ... we have two contradictory claims. So one is a lie.

l ain't saying it's you that's lying ... but you know, if nobody corrected this misinformation, then you cannot blame people for thinking Schmidt was involved in founding Anarkismo.

Further, l sort of went back in time to see what people said about the founding of Anarkismo. There seems to be some contradictions. First, there was this, published by Anarkismo:

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/358
Welcome to Anarkismo.net a new multi lingual anarchist news and discussion site. The site comes about through the extended collabortion of anarchist communists in Europe, North and South America, Africa and Australia.

Elswhere, Andred Flood wrote:
In 2004 informal discussions started between a few of us from that list who met up in Dublin about a new international initiative to be based around a multi-lingual magazine. These continued for some months but it became clear that what had seemed like a simple proposal on paper would be very difficult to implement. So we shifted instead to the idea of launching a website. The idea became more defined and on Mayday 2005 Anarkismo.net went live, initially as an individual initiative of a number of members of platformist groups while we proved to our organisations that this could be worthwhile.

Elsewhere it was written that it was founded by mostly European organizations, which contradicts what you say. The WSM site refers to Dm. as a founder of Anarkismo, although he was not in the groups you mentioned as founding groups.

Well, obviously there are different versions of who founded you, (Andrew tells a different version than you here), but l suppose it was a process that went on a while and, maybe MS was involved. Maybe not. ln any case, if he wasn't, maybe the Anarkismo collective would comment that on his biography. lt actually is relevant in establishing his credibility (or lack thereof). lf what you say is correct. but l suppose it was a process that went on a while and, maybe MS was involved. Maybe not. ln any case, if he wasn't, maybe the Anarkismo collective would comment that on his biography. lt actually is relevant in establishing his credibility (or lack thereof). lf what you say is correct.

Then l ask you to stop making incorrect over-generalizations about people who are not happy with this affair or some reactions to it.

At this point, l would be neither happy to learn that MS was not a founder or Anarkismo, but nobody bothered to correct his claims, nor to find out he was and it looks like somebody is denying it. l hope that isn't the case.

The Anarkismo editorial group rejected two or more articles by Schmidt in 2015. We know the titles of two unpublished articles and a little about their subject matter, though these may not be the same two that were rejected. One may have actually been published for a very short time on Anarkismo (by accident? or some other internal controversy/confusion?). The more we see this sort of thing, and the seeming disconnect between how items are published / distributed and the accounts of the Anarkismo editors who do talk to the public (like yourself and libcom user ocelot), the more it seems like there's some dysfunction (perhaps it can be accounted for because Anarkismo is large and international, and a small group of English speakers make the decisions about English-language articles).

The passing around of that draft #18 of the ZACF statement above is another example of some people having more information than others inside Anarkismo, and perhaps even getting the go-ahead to publish, followed by a rushed panic to pull information from the Web. Now we're seeing comments disappearing from old articles, and the whole thing seems fishy (we only have rumour so far, but will be able to know if comments are removed going forward because we're keeping better tabs on them).

Anyway, these articles should see the light of day --

“Menace in Europe: Lessons on Unassimilated Fascist Islam in Europe”, the title is a reference to Claire Berlinski's Islamophobic book, and the content is about current Arab and Muslim migrations in Europe.

"Neither Fish nor Fowl: Populism, Red Overalls and Black Shirts", the content is about South Africa's party the Economic Freedom Fighters.

These articles were submitted by Schmidt in the hopes of being published on Anarkismo, and will have to be made available to any commission, and attached to any findings by such a commission. Publishing these and other works will help clarify Schmidt's modern political beliefs, within the past year. If I had to guess, I'd say they'd quickly reinforce the obvious rightward shift of even Schmidt's publicly-targeted writings.

I know whenever anyone asks for such a leak, it makes it seem like the last person being asked for the info was definitively the one who did it. I want to make clear that this is a general call to everyone out there who has these, not specifically to Johnny or anyone who has been asked in the past. I'm sure there are many Anarkismo editors watching this comment section.

ZACF and Anarkismo were happy to have both of the Black Flame authors prominently featured, when they were showcased in a better light. Now that shit has hit the fan, they are just some nobodies who submit articles occasionally. It's also been insinuated that Black Flame (though an "invaluable contribution") was barely edited by Schmidt, as if he were a reviewer. If so, why his name on the cover and the worldwide tours discussing the book?

Perhaps that English-speaking group which seems to hold so much sway over ZACF and Anarkismo placed Van der Walt and Schmidt in positions of prominence they did not deserve. If there was no outrage or correction of it then, it's disingenuous to correct commenters now who call them founders of these groups. Just like Anarkismo and ZACF have no ground to stand on for criticizing any form of investigation into Schmidt in 2015-2016, when there was no investigation, let alone a commission, in 2011 (or earlier).

ok I'll stop to publish here, because at least one is dishonest and use what I say about language difficulties to then attack the english-speakers comrades of anarkismo. that's unfair. now I understand there was no need for clarifications, because all that some (but few) wants is to continue to find a conspiracy, where there is a wish to maintain formal functionning.
ask me for something meanwhile continuing attacking my comrades of the editorial group is not the good tactic to obtain it, wait for the commission. as far as I'm concern this is my last personal post here.
greetings

ok I'll stop to publish here, because at least one is dishonest and use what I say about language difficulties to then attack the english-speakers comrades of anarkismo. that's unfair. now I understand there was no need for clarifications, because all that some (but few) wants is to continue to find a conspiracy, where there is a wish to maintain formal functionning.
ask me for something meanwhile continuing attacking my comrades of the editorial group is not the good tactic to obtain it, wait for the commission. as far as I'm concern this is my last personal post here.
greetings

I did no such thing, Johnny. Nor is it conspiracy theory to talk about unpublished articles we know have been passed around, or the dysfunction that led to the ZACF statement draft being temporarily published on the Web and taken down. What I know is only rumour at the moment, I identified as such.

This is a perfect illustration of the defensive nature of ZACF and Anarkismo member comments, so far. The rest of us are all just wild attack dogs, it seems, and any call for transparency is an attack. I'm sure such caricatures will be used against Schmidt's critics if "the commission" ever gets formed. You keep waiting Johnny for that 250 page report, with 200 pages devoted to criticizing anyone and anything but Schmidt.

We've done nothing to inhibit "formal functioning" of Anarkismo or any other organization......if that's the feeling that has overcome members, there are other reasons for it, perhaps valid concerns about Anarkismo's role in all this.

I consider myself in the organised, class struggle anarchist tradition, and I have been since I was first an anarchist. Perhaps because of the people I am associated with, everyone I know who has decided that Schmidt is some kind of fascist or national anarchist is also from organised, class struggle tradition, many from formal organisations, and some from organisations inside the Anarkismo network.

We need more statements in solidarity with those who have recognized White Power Schmidt for what he is. there are almost none. Please send a call out to your orgs.

The original idea for Anarkismo.net came from a meeting in Dublin of 3 comrades, of which I was one. This group of three developed the idea and started the early work on the website. At a later stage other comrades joined the group including Schmidt and comrades from North America. As this was well before the actual launch of the site in May 2005, it can reasonably be said that Michael Schmidt was among the founders, though not, shall we say, the originators of the site.

by The Cake Is Not A Lie - The Commission Is Not A Lie?Thu Mar 31, 2016 23:39

Anarkismo network in its 30 Jan statement:

"Therefore, the Anarkismo network has decided to call for a commission of enquiry to investigate more closely both the accusations and the defence, and to make recommendations to the broader anarchist movement based on their findings."

Lucien van der Walt in his 11 Feb statement:

"I wait for the commission, I discuss with comrades, colleagues and friends.

And I will take a final position after the commission."

ZACF in its 19 Feb statement:

"ZACF will be guided by the findings and recommendations of the proposed commission, and will address all the allegations against Schmidt, and his defence, in a separate statement at the conclusion of the commission's investigations."

Will The Commission ever materialize? Or is it the stall tactic and smokescreen critics have alleged? Is The Commission just a distraction, in the hopes that everyone will forget this ugly affair and which people/orgs lined up to defend Schmidt?

"[Karelianlue 06-28-2006, 05:58 AM] "To clear up a couple of misconceptions:
1. the Soweto Riots erupted NOT because of the use of Afrikaans (Afrikaans was a popularly-spoken language in Soweto and was taught at Morris Isaacson right until 2004!). This is a racist Black Consciousness argument that was developed after the fact. The uprising was about the fact that the West Rand Services Board had its R2-million a year (!) subsidy from the Joburg City Council (Whites financially carrying blacks!) cut at the end of 1975. Even the hated Truth and Reconciliation Commission admitted that the end of the subsidy was the real reason behind the riots.
2. the SACP and ANC (who were ineffective nobodies, lost in the wilderness of exile) had bugger-all to do with the uprising, which was a Black Consciousness Movement thing.
3. Theuns "Rooi Rus" Swanepoel who commanded the Riot Unit that stopped the Morris Isaacson rioters lost his eye when a black threw a bottle at him. What happened next is unclear in the confusion, but Swanepoel always maintained that he used "appropriate force" - though he complained that some police officers dragged their heels and were not keen on a kragdadige solution.
4. the riots saw the first use of the notorious "necklace" method of killing people the blacks didn't like. It's a fact that very few murdered in this brutal way were police informers."

[Wistybok [06-29-2006, 03:51 AM] A kaffir will always twist the truth to his own advantage, especially when he wants the sympathy of the world. " 'n kaffir bly 'n donderse kaffir!"

Compare to his June 16, 2016 post two weeks ago:

"1) The Insurrection in fact started not in June with a revolt by schoolkids against instruction in Afrikaans as is usually recalled, but in January by adult black workers outraged at the Western Services Council dramatically raising rent and service charges after the all-white Joburg City Council suspended its usual R2-million annual subsidy"

6) Afrikaans was in fact retained as a medium of education at Morris Isaacson well past 1976, until 2005 when a misinterpretation of a Department of Education ruling that instruction needed to be in at least two official languages lead [sic] to Afrikaans being dropped, which really upset the many black Afrikaners in the school (contrary to popular belief that it is a white language, Afrikaans is the home language of 16 million South Africans, about 3 million white, three million coloured, and 10 million black).

I would suggest these [current South African] movements [in 2016] look at a vital critique of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), an exile formalisation of the post-16 June movement.

5) The police commander who gained notoriety for ordering a police phalanx to gun down protesting schoolchildren on 16 June, Theuns "Rooi Rus" (Red Russian) Swanepoel, who later became a brigadier and the chief interrogator of the Security Branch as well as a staunch AWB fascist, lost an eye in the rioting. He told the Truth & Reconciliation Commission "I made my mark. I let it be known to the rioters I would not tolerate what was happening. I used appropriate force. In Soweto and Alexandra where I operated, that broke the back of the organisers." Having never stood trial, Swanepoel died on 7 July 1998 at the age of 70 years old at his home in Roodepoort, Johannesburg."

He ends the 2016 blog post with a long diatribe putting down the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) and influential black resistance groups under apartheid (ANC, PAC, Soweto Students Representative Council). He posts an excerpt of his own writing from 2005, where he calls the ANC, PAC, and CPSA "hoary old pseudo-liberators" that "have gone further than the old Afrikaner elite ever could to help the capitalist state overhaul its image." This last part is to serve as a lesson to the many thousands of BCM-inspired black students recently challenging South African political reality through mass student activism.

Hi Jon. At what point should you and the ZACF acknowledge or address what is going on here without a commission? Don't these posts once again confirm Schmidt is messed up? He claims Afrikaans is "the home language" of 10 million "black Afrikaners"?! Data is not even close. We know how awful these comments are and what they mean coming from Schmidt yet again.

How do you explain Schmidt's lie about his Lebensrune tattoo? It is, after all, a Nazi symbol. In his blog response he listed his tattoos and noted his "printer's mark" on his left shoulder. Next to that same "printer's mark" is the Lebensrune. The same symbol he says he uses to express his racism on Stormfront. The one that "dumbass darkies" don't get. He forgot about it? How do you explain?

He never mentions the dominance of white capital, white domination and racism in South Africa TODAY, the fact of zero reparations or that whites got to keep all their economic wealth stolen through centuries of extreme black oppression as part of the negotiation with white tyrants to create post-apartheid democracy, etc etc. Across the century he never mentions white supremacy as a problem (only generic capitalists).

He appears to protest the oppression of the "indigenous peasantry" of "white farmers" by the "multimillionaire" Nelson Mandela.

And get ready, he protests today's great big political threat to South Africa.......drum-roll.......black people!

We have all the elements for nascent black fascism: right-wing populist parties (EFF, etc) and separatist movements; corrupt yellow trade unions linked to the government and the oligarchs (COSATU); a heavily-armed private security sector (Mapogo a Mathamaga etc); a culture of political assassinations of shop stewards, white farmers etc; murderous xenophobic organisations (Malumalela Social Movement for the Unemployed etc); the spread of ultra-conservative religious cults; and a new Stasi-trained securocrat state reliant on dumbed-down public education and a militarised police force, which has launched an assault on press freedoms, independence of the judiciary, and Section 9 institutions which defend the Constitution.

I'll be brief. the proposal is been finalized and is actual in translation process. then it will be send to all orgs of the network for approval, then it will be send to other tendancies. a statementwill be released once the whole network will have approved the proposal (I would estimate 8 to 15 weeks, depending on how long translation process takes and how much amendements will be submited).

Why is it that the worst things Schmidt did have not been addressed by anyone contemplating supporting him?

Schmidt made a large biographical response in which he addressed a few allegations against him.

Some questions

1. Schmidt lied about having a Nazi tattoo. He listed the "total sum of his ink" and coincidentally left the Nazi "Lebensrune" tattoo off the list. On Stormfront he brags about displaying the Lebensrune a racist symbol. He knows what that symbol represents. Is having a Nazi tattoo not a serious thing? Why is this (and below) not enough to discredit him?

2. He created a long list of his published essays as proof of his alibi. He did not provide a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR QUOTE from a SINGLE WORK to prove his Stormfront and Strandwolf writings were undercover investigations. Not a single shred of data after 8 years or more of extremist racist and dangerous postings, including incitements to violence against blacks and race riots to thousands of violent white supremacists. Why is this okay?

3. Schmidt continues to rant against blacks to this day. In 2016, he posted a deluded Afrikaner-nationalist post about the Soweto uprising so awful that Jon from the ZACF explicitly dissociated them from Schmidt in a response above. At a later date this year Schmidt reviewed the history of the ANC struggle and concluded by warning society about the dangers of "black fascists" as the threat to South Africa today. How do you explain this?

What is the deal? Schmidt declared the conversation closed and threatened defamation lawsuits. Are people in the anarchist community are supposed to line up to his dictate and state-based (legal) threat?

Why do we need a "commission" to interpret these things for us? Is the evidence not clear enough? Wouldn't it be a simple matter for Schmidt to clear up the issue if he had evidence explaining his Nazi tattoo and actual data published from his 8 years of racist posting?

Awaiting Johnny one (Anarkismo), Jon (ZACF), and anyone else supporting a commission or defending Schmidt to respond to these questions. It will take 5-10 minutes to answer so time is not the issue.